What gun laws would have prevented the recent mass murders?

[Jackson1999]

Every time there is a tragedy like those in New York, Pa. or Calif., people start calling for more gun control laws. If you are pro gun control, please tell me what specific laws you think would have prevented these crimes.

[coyotespaw]

1. While I can't think of any gun laws that would prevent these things from happening

increased spending on mental health care would help; especially if we could find a way to remove the stigma from reaching out for psychological assistance.

[Statistical]

22. DING DING DING

However most politicians don't want to look at long complex solutions.

They want a "magic bullet" to pardon the pun.

Improved mental health. Free, confidential, walk in mental services for people regardless of socio-economic status would improve the situation.
Better tracking of potential dangerous mentally unsound persons.
Improved NICS so more violent persons w/ mental health issues are prohibited from buying firearms.

It would however take years (maybe a decade) to see the full effect.

Instead "GUN CONTROL. Stop the killings." Gets votes now and creates a wedge issue.

[rrneck]

44. What we are seeing

now is the result of years of cultural mismanagement. Chickens are coming home to roost. Americans aren't very good at being proactive are they?

[Statistical]

47. Generally? No.

[rrneck]

2. None that I can think of

short of an outright ban and confiscation. Then that would have only stopped mass murder by firearm.

[baldguy]

3. Eliminate the myth of the cowboy, the lie of individual gun rights & fear of our fellow citizens.

The gun industry spends billions to promote these myths, lies & fears and so many more - only to maintain their market & subvert existing laws that no more laws won't help. No amount of blood will make them change.

But as a start, license all gun owners, register all guns & require liability & accident insurance all around. FORCE responsibility on all the gun fanatics who seek to avoid it.

[Jackson1999]

5. ...and this would do what?

again, can you name one law that could have prevented these tragedies?

[rl6214]

8. Do you believe in UFOs, the myth of the moon landing

The conspiracy theory concerning the Kennedy assasination, Area 51?

You sound just like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck:

"The gun industry spends billions to promote these myths, lies & fears and so many more - only to maintain their market & subvert existing laws that no more laws won't help"

You've got that tin foil wrapped on pretty tight.

"But as a start, license all gun owners, register all guns & require liability & accident insurance all around. FORCE responsibility on all the gun fanatics who seek to avoid it."

You are wanting to put an awefull financial strain on those that may not be able to afford it. I would even venture to say that may be borderline racism or elitism.

[Hugabear]

53. Awful financial strain?

If you can afford several hundred dollars for a gun, as well as the $$$ for ammunition, then why couldn't you afford a license?

[rl6214]

55. It's class warfare

You can't require someone to pay those type of fees or even have an ID. I mean, we don't make them have a picture ID to vote in some neiborhoods.

[Hugabear]

64. NOT the same thing.

You have a constitutional right to vote.

You do not have a constitutional right to a gun. You have the right to OWN a gun. You still have to purchase the gun yourself. If merely having a gun was a constitutional right, then everybody would be entitled to a free gun. And you're wrong about requiring an ID - try buying a gun from a licensed dealer without showing ID.

Again, if you can afford to shell out hundreds of dollars for a gun and ammo, then you can afford to get a license.

[hendo]

116. but you cannot introduce a law

that would put the purchase of a gun outside of the financial means of some person. That is effectively taking away thier right to own one if they so choose.

Unless you prefer that they buy one illegally? I hear you can get some pretty good deals on pistols out on the street.

[yay]

117. Hundred

I can pick up a cricket .22 for under 150 with a box of 550 .22 shells.

If the license was <$100 I could go for that. Anything over that is asinine.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Most of us can. But it's still the same as a Poll Tax, and offensive to us.

[Hugabear]

65. How is it the same as a Poll Tax?

You already have to pay for the background check. How would requiring gun owners to obtain a license be any different?

[AtheistCrusader]

81. The NICS background check doesn't cost anything at all.

So not sure what you meant by that. The only background check that costs money, is the sort needed for a fully automatic weapon.

As for a poll tax, if you place a tax on keeping and bearing arms, I don't see how it could be interpreted any differently than placing a tax on your right to vote. Would you accept a fee for permission to speak out, on any subject? You know, just a small fee to ensure you haven't, and won't engage in slander or libel?

[Hugabear]

85. Because one is a tangible object

As I pointed out in #64, the Constitution doesn't actually grant everyone the right to a gun. It gives you the right to bear arms. Meaning that it allows you the right to arm yourself. If it actually granted you the right to a gun, then every citizen would be entitled to a free gun - after all, it would be a right, would it not? The 5th amendment gives you the right to a lawyer; if you can't afford a lawyer, then one must be appointed to you at no cost.

Fortunately you don't have a right to a gun, you have the right to OWN a gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Actually it doesn't grant anything.

It prohibits the government from infringing on our right to bear arms. Not the same thing.

[Statistical]

118. You need to read some history on not just the 2nd but entire Bill Of Rights

The BOR don't grant ANYTHING.

The right to keep & bear arms was considered an inalienable right from our creator. Those who are not religious could consider it a basic human right.

The constitution PROTECTS that existing RIGHT against INFRINGEMENT by the Federal govt.

One method of INFRINGEMENT on the right to vote was a tax. Most people could pay it but many who were poorer would choose not to and thus had their suffrage deprived.

If your goal is a license, or registration, or background check why not make it FREE to the citizen? If you goal really is to ensure maximum use of license, or registration, or NICS check on trades or whatever system you believe would make guns safe why add a cost to it?

How would charging for it someone make it more effective?

Why not charge for voting. Elections are incredibly expensive. Even more expensive today that a century ago. Why not just recoup the cost of an election via a poll tax. Make it simple collect the tax/fee at time of registration?

If you are for and are stuck on the concept of taxing (fee) the citizen they look at your true motivation. Could it be that your true motivation is not some increased public safety via license, registration, safety course, or NICS check? Could your true intention be that such systems expensive and cumbersome would reduce ownership. Reducing the excersising of a right is infringement.

[krispos42]

108. You're charging a fee for the act of ownership

As opposed to use.



You want to vote? Fine, pay a tax. You want to buy a gun? Fine, pay another tax besides the sales tax and the excise tax.

[Caliman73]

104. Many people do not own firearms worth several hundred dollars.

Many own inexpensive firearms such as Hi-Points, Jennings, Phoenix, or used pistols and shotguns that run anywhere from $90 to $200 dollars because that is all they can afford to spend on their self defense. You want people to pay more than they can afford for a tool for self defense and then have to pay more for the privilege of practicing a constitutional right?

[spin]

78. Gun control has racists roots...

http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm

Obviously the wealthy always feel safer if the lower middle and the poor class are financially unable to own a significant number of firearms. Just as they would prefer that their children get far better education than the poor and lower middle class.

There are, of course, exceptions to this rule who understand and try to correct inequity in our society. These people often practice the true values of the Christian religion far better than most Fundamentalist Christians. The surprising thing is that many of these good people do not consider themselves religious at all.

[jmg257]

16. "The lie of individual gun rights"? I think the OP is talking about the US here.

Where there is no doubt that the individual right to arms exists, and is secured.

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Individual gun rights is NOT a lie. That is settled law.

[baldguy]

37. Bush v Gore is "settled law" too, but the RW has a vested interest in having a corrupt USSC.

When the founders wanted to refer to the people collectively they used the phrase "the people"; when they wanted to refer to persons as individuals they used the phrase "persons". Check the language in the 4th Amendment (that's one of the other ones) if you don't believe me. It's very simple. The issue only get clouded when billions of dollars & the political control of the US govt is involved. The NRA and the GOP want to cloud the issue. Gun worshipers help them.

Of course its against the gun worshipers' religion to read the Constitution as it's actually written. The high priests at the NRA have to tell them how they're supposed to interpret it.

[Statistical]

43. So are the left leaning justices on the Supreme Court corrupt or stupid.

All 9 justices believe the 2nd amendment protects an existing right of individual ownership.

The "collective right" theory has been so debunked that anyone claiming to it has about as much legitimacy as a Holocaust denier does in Middle East negotiations.

“A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.”
If this were in the BoR would you also argue that only "pizzas" and not the people have right to keep & cook tomatoes?


As far as "the people" not indicating an individual right. Can you at least no accept how DANGEROUS that concept is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So you have no individual right to assemble?
You have no individual right to be protected against warrantless seizure?

[baldguy]

45. How can one person "assemble" all by himself? Its logically absurd.

An "assembly" by definition requires more than one person.

And the 4th says "persons" explicitly: "The right of the people (collectively) to be secure in their persons (individually)...".

Its astonishing how the gun worships' religious beliefs can totally override their knowledge of English. There are 13 families in Binghamton who can tell you haw dangerous that is.

[Statistical]

46. So the 4 liberal justices of SCOTUS are stupid?

They reached the same conclusion.
Let me break it down simple for you.
THE ONES VOTING AGAINST HELLER & FOR THE BAN IN DC STILL BELIEVE THE B.O.R. PROTECTS AND INIDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

No justice. Not one justice believe they way you do.

They all believe in an individual right, as do hundreds of law professors, and Constitutional scholars many of whom neither own weapon nor ever want to.
They are all stupid too?

BTW:
Persons doesn't mean an individual right in the context above it means you person (i.e your body) can't be searched without a warrant. To ensure LEO understand that not just your home is protected but your person. The people, all people individually (regardless of what the state, the govt, the leo, or even the majority of citizens believe) are protected.

[Statistical]

54. Found another crazy absurd right winger who believes an "individual right"

"I have been very Consistent, I teach Constitutional law. What I have said is I Believe in the second amendment as being an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT." - Barrack Obama June 26, 2008.

Bad news is the only clip I can find of it is an attack piece but it clearly is the President in his own words explaining that he (like me, and those crazy Justices, and virtually anyone who looks logically at the issue) believes the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4pr8z8z

Anyone know where this clip took place or if they have seen another clip on internet that hasn't been distorted into an attack ad?

[baldguy]

68. Even though it's difficult for a gun worshiper to understand, I'm not a blind follower of Obama.

If he fucks up, he gets criticized. He fucked up. But unlike the followers of the NRA, I believe he does other things well which he should be supported for.

Interpreting the Constitution is an ongoing process, which is unfortunately influenced by money & politics. Due to this the USSC sometime fucks up to. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Santa Clara Co v Southern Pacific RR, Bush v Gore and Heller are all among the many erroneous decisions by the USSC. While I have no hope that Bush v Gore and Santa Clara Co v Southern Pacific RR will be overturned, Dred Scott an Plessy v Ferguson have been by more enlightened versions of the court. Considering that Heller was the result of heavy lobbying and enormous political pressure, and that it runs counter to nearly every other court decision it will most likely be overturned & corrected.

[Statistical]

70. Well you can always dream.

Heller doesn't run contrary to Miller.

Had Miller been armed w/ a 9mm instead of a sawed off shotgun (which court ruled had no legitimate military / defensive use) it likely would have been decided 20 years ago.

Miller was dead at time SCOTUS ruling and his lawyer was incompetent. Even then the court decided to rule on the specific issue and it was that Miller weapon was not a legitimate arm under the 2nd.

The court could have simply thrown it out finding no standing under the 2nd for ANY CITIZEN with ANY WEAPON (like you seem to think) but they didn't.

Which implies that even in that court the court wasn't willing to rule NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Seeing as ALL 9 JUSTICES believe in an individual right (they just differed on the extent that govt can regulate that right) it will be a long long time before court could change enough for the majority to feel otherwise.

Average Presidential term has replaced 1.2 judges. So we are looking at on average 4-5 terms (16 to 20 years) before you could pack the court w/ 5 justices that believe the 2nd means no individual right.

Of course that assumes the next 5 of 5 replacement justices buy into the defunct collective right nonsense.

[beevul]

100. A point...

"Had Miller been armed w/ a 9mm instead of a sawed off shotgun (which court ruled had no legitimate military / defensive use) it likely would have been decided 20 years ago."

No, that NOT what the court ruled.


The court was not shown any evidence of a sawn off shottie being related to militia use. "in the absence of any evidence..."

[Statistical]

101. I looked up ruling and your right (been a while since I read it)

So:

Best case scenario for antis is that even given sufficient evidence the courts would ruled it could have legitimate militia use which still doesn't mean that other weapons wouldn't be valid under 2nd.

Worst case scenario for antis is that Miller is little more that a case of poor legal representation.

I often wonder what would have happened is Miller case had been slightly different scenario....
the accused being someone with standing/finances, more common weapon (9mm, .45), good counsel, plantiff still alive at time of trial.

[umccoyw]

114. the miller case i dont think.......

even ran the full course and thats why its kinda grey, i believe miller died while it was in court so they never really finished it to the full conclusion

[Statistical]

119. Well it reached a conclusion but it wasn't justice.

The courts ruled when miller who was dead and obviosuly not present or able to provide for his own defense.

Miller was represented by incompetent counsel who also wasn't present at the end of the "trial".

Miller lawyer didn't even answer/prove questions asked by the court.


However despite all that (and despite the rhetoric of antis) Miller doesn't connect gun ownership w/ militia service.

The court simply wanted to know if there was a legitimate purpose for sawed off shotgun.
The defense provided no evidence and the court ruled that in the absense of legimitate military purpose that Miller had no 2nd ammendment protection.

If Miller had still been alive....
If Miller had consel who actually answered questions of the court...
IF Miller has been armed w/ a weapon w/ military purpose (such as common 9mm handgun)...

the decision could have been quite different.

So when anti reach to Miller (despite the clearer decision in Heller available) as the "golden rule" of 2nd=militia you know they are reaching for something anything no matter how weak to support the long discredited notion of "collective right".

[DonP]

120. Worse than that ...

You are correct, Miller died before it came to SCOTUS and his attorney was not even present at the hearing. His attorney (from Oklahoma I believe) received less than 10 days notice of the SCOTUS hearing date and was not able to travel to DC for the trial.

So the Supreme's of the day only heard from one side and made their decision based on a very limited view and decided that a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon and therefore not protected by the 2nd amendment.

That ignores a number of short barreled shotguns in use from WW I and before by the military. It was an ugly case all around and has been so misstated over the years by so many on both sides of the discussion that it's thankfully become irrelevant now.

The Heller case has basically replaced Miller for cites since last summer.

[Hoopla Phil]

75. Sophistry, nuff said.

[krispos42]

110. In Bush v. Gore, the Supremes explicitely said their ruling was one-use only.

And saying that the right to privacy is a collective, not an individual right, sounds exactly like something Gonzo would say at a congressional hearing. Remember his steller comments on habeas corpus?

[Statistical]

23. So all 9 supreme court justices were wrong?

Even those that voted against Heller believe there is in individual right to own firearms UNCONNECT to service in militia.

If you are unable to accept (not like but at least accept) then you are living in some anti fantasy land and anything else you say is suspect.

[DonP]

25. "Spend Billions"? WTF

The entire US Gun Industry is only about $3 to $5 billion in annual sales. (The range is because some of the larger firms are privately held and do not publish their sales figures.)

It would be pretty hard for them to be spending billions on anything. Most of their promotion is trying to get me to buy a Ruger 10/22 rather than a Marlin Model 60, not to tell me how mythical cowboys are.

American's spend more money on potato chips every year then that.

As industries go it's pretty small and all their "spending" is limited to a handful of special interest magazines and a few commercials on the Outdoor network.

But, hey, don't let reality or facts get in the way to an uninformed, emotionally driven rant. It's easier to demonize things if they are big.

Carry on. I just wanted others to know how foolish your claim was.

Oh, and Mr. Justice, thank you for your ruling on individual right being unconstitutional. I'm assuming you have a majority of SCOTUS to back you up since Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy and every other justice held its an individual right.

Let us know when you get your robe until then I'll go with those other guys.

[Furyataurus]

41. When was the last time

anyone saw a "gun" commercial on t.v.???? I have NEVER seen one. Actually, it's Hollywood that perpetuated the "Cowboy" myth. Can you tell me which gun makers subvert existing laws to sell more guns? I'm going to email the gun makers and see how much they give to the evil nasty lying NRA or if they even reply.

Why don't you start with CRIMINALS first and let us know how that goes.

[umccoyw]

113. gun owners are liable

if someone breaks the law and shoots or kills someone with a gun they go to jail and can be sued civilly and forced to pay money, also then everyone should have insurance on there speech because what if someone goes out and incites a riot by there words and people die.

[sandnsea]

4. Different attitude towards crime

More money in mental health before crimes are committed instead of pushing the "right" to handle all your problems with a gun.

[virginia mountainman]

39. "problems" What Problems???

Mine don't cause any problems??

[Caliman73]

105. You can't even settle problems with your fists without being arrested.

Why would any responsible owner want to handle "problems" with a gun? I haven't seen anyone on this post advocate handling "problems" with a gun. I mean a gun isn't going to pay my bills. A gun isn't going to tune up my car. It isn't going to go to work for me. There aren't any problems that a gun can "handle". All of the people who have used guns in the recent weeks to commit violence on others had already given up "handling" their problems. Their problems had won out and they were just acting out their failure to deal with their problems violently.

Most pro-gun folks on this board have advocated better screening for the purchase of firearms. Most have also supported increased mental health care access. The only "right" including a firearm that has been advocated is the right to defend our lives and the lives of our loved ones with an effective tool for doing that.

[ConcernedCanuk]

6. anyone here consider HAARP as a possibility?

.
.
.

I've seen it mentioned elsewhere

HAARP and mass murder

After all, even though it is supposed to be a scientific study of something or other,

it operates under the wing of the Department of Defense . .

hmmmmmm

. . :freak: . .

[rl6214]

9. OK

You need to add a lttle more tin foil as well.

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. Keep your eyes closed - seems to work for the rest of the USA . . .

.
.
.

Bombs and bullets - that's the way to go!

Roh Roh USA . . .

gimmeabreak

[rl6214]

34. Give me a break?

What exactly do bombs have to do with gun control?

[yay]

63. It's Ruh Roh....

just sayin

[ConcernedCanuk]

67. LOL - ok thanks - Us Canucks can be a wee bit slow yaknow

.
.
.

All this cold weather slows down our brain cells

[yay]

79. Everyone has brain farts NT

[Jackson1999]

7. 85 views and still *crickets* n/t

[rl6214]

10. See post #3

[Hoopla Phil]

18. I guess they mean to repeal the 2A as it DOES protect the individual right to arms.

[EmilyAnne]

11. Well, as someone above said:

"license all gun owners, register all guns & require liability & accident insurance all around. FORCE responsibility on all the gun fanatics who seek to avoid it."

I don't see how these things would be infringing on rights.
In my opinion, they will reduce gun related deaths.
Especially the licensing and registration.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. How would that have prevented the recent mass murders though?

[EmilyAnne]

32. Good question and I really have no idea how it could prevent the recent mass murders.

Still, it seems that there isn't any harm that could come from registration and licensing.
Am I wrong?
Why are these things seen by some people as anti-second amendment?
Thanks for you reply!

[Hoopla Phil]

77. I disagree and I'll explain why.

The inability to come up with any gun control law that would have prevented what has happened is why I disagree. That response is not meaning to be flip either.

Lets take a step back and look at the NICS deal. I, in general terms support that. It does not burden the my rights and seems a reasonable way to insure that bad people don't get firearms. BUT, it has been shown (and some would say proven) to be unable to stop bad people intent on doing bad things from getting guns. So why is that? Because the bad guys go to the black market to get their guns. It exists and there is very little that can be done to stop it. Looking at other countries will show that the more restrictive gun control is the more prevalent the black market in guns is.

So when you ask what harm could be done by registering and licensing I believe you are standing at the top and looking down where as I'm standing at the bottom looking up. My question is that since such regulations will not do anything but create a greater burden on the lawful ownership of firearms and do nothing to stop bad guys from doing bad things then why do it? I have a fundamental problem with ANY law that will not do anything but burden good people for no good reason. I simply do not believe in having laws for the sake of having laws. It is contrary to my entire belief system. Such a law will not do anything to keep people safer but I hear from the anti's "well, lets do it anyway". That makes NO sense what so ever to me.

Now if someone can come up with something that would have stopped these rampages I'm open to listening to it but I'm not open to more laws that burden a civil right without doing anything to stop the bad guys.

[Statistical]

24. How?

Recent mass shootings were by mentally disturbed individuals who previously had no felony conviction.

They could have easily been licensed and all firearms registered.
They made no attempt to cover up their crime such that registration would have helped police to solve the crime.

Licensing - would not have prevented crime.
Registration - never prevents crime (may and evidence indicates it doesn't) help solve crimes or aid in conviction
Insurance - ok so victims get some restitution but you can't believe the would have prevented the crime.

FORCING RESPONSIBILITY - how exactly?

Someone willing to kill themselves likely doesn't care about the additional gun charges or the fact that their liability insurance is going up.

[EmilyAnne]

33. You know what? I honestly have no idea. In these particular cases, it seems that you are right.

The registration, licensing and insurance wouldn't do much.
Still, I am interested in what you think about these things in general?
How would they infringe on second amendment rights?
Thanks for your answer.

I'm actually afraid of guns and want them all to actually disappear magically.
Which, of course, really means that I want all gun-related violence to disappear magically.
So, while I acknowledge that the magical disappearance thing is not going to happen, some of my thinking about gun control is still based on this underlying fear.
I really don't WANT to be irrational about the issue.
I wish there was an easy answer.

[Statistical]

50. Well I am impressed.

Most people try to hide beliefs.
Say "nobody wants to make guns go away" when in reality they do.
They also tend not to admit their biases.

So I respect you are willing to be honest about your position.
Understanding you are biased and not wanting to be is a big first step.

I do think there is some common ground we can reach.

I don't think that registration, licensing, or insurance infringe on the 2nd amendment.
I just don't think they would be very effective.

Since you bring up the 2nd:
I am curious do you believe the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution protects and individual right to bear arms as decided in Heller vs DC case?
This isn't what you want but more acceptance. Do you think an individual right exists (even if you hate that it does)?

[spin]

49. Liability and accident insurance...how much would that cost?

I don't believe a policy like that exists right now.

What you are suggesting would simply guarantee that only the wealthy and affluent upper middle class could afford firearms.

But then again that's always been the object of gun control. You have to keep the poor and the minorities under control.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

[safeinOhio]

12. I'm not for it, at all

but you ask. Yearly mental health exams for gun owners. Now, be careful what you ask for.

[lazer47]

13. How about we start with a yearly mental health check for all drivers

more people die driving, than have ever been killed with guns

[FunkyLeprechaun]

107. Please, not THAT analogy again

Cars weren't designed to kill, guns were designed to kill.

[jefflrrp]

14. as I've heard from . . . and agree with

some on this board, I'd try to improve the background check system to include more mental health based issues. I'd also extend the NICS system to private sellers and private parties at gunshows. And then just start enforcing the other 22,000 firearms laws already on the books.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. In one case I KNOW of the guy could not purchase legally. So how

would your suggestion have stopped him or the others? The O.P. is what gun laws would have prevented the recent mass shootings, not a re-hash of the same old calls for something.

[Jackson1999]

21. So far, no takers?

Okay, so far we have registration, more money for mental health, and gun insurance. Sorry, but NONE of those would have prevented any of these mass murders. The only one close to an impactful idea was the suggestion for annual mental health examinations-and feasibility aside, that would not have helped in California. Total confiscation seems the only other suggestion.

Doesn't that bother any of you pro-gun control folks? You can't think of one law that would have prevented these events?

I am still open for ideas.

[X_Digger]

27. Can't be done..

I can't think of a law that will stop a determined mentally disturbed person or criminal. Laws don't stop behavior, they provide a deterrence via punishment. If someone doesn't care about the consequences, a law won't stop them (hence the meme about 'well, we should make murder illegal.') Even in countries like Germany with strict laws, tragedies happen involving firearms.

The cost of freedom is that freedom can and will be abused. The cost of the freedom of speech is that someone will shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater. The cost of the freedom to keep and bear arms is that someone will murder someone else.

[safeinOhio]

30. It is really a loaded question

Nothing could have been done to stop every case. Just like airplane crashes, the only way to stop them all is to ban airplanes. When there is a crash, we try to learn from it and make improvements to both the planes and procedures.
Where the 3 cops got ambushed, we can change how domestic calls are answered. Always at least 2 cops with the second one used as cover. Long gun out and not walking up to the door. Or some other way. Another way that may have stopped that idiot, would be to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". The guy was into hate radio and those guys may be inciting a lot of this.
The one where 13 people were killed, find a way to identify people that are going off the deep end mentally. Offer a way to report and investigate strange behaviors.
The ones that have shot their families because of the economy could be deterred if they had hope of employment. Spend more on jobs.

In each case there is something that can be done. Just like when a plane crashes, we do something.

[X_Digger]

31. Yup, no single solution / law

These atrocities do highlight that we have a fundamental problem, whether it's a lack of a competent, accessible mental health system, a safety net that helps those most affected in an economic downturn, or criminalizing behaviors for _some_ substances that then give them little reason to abide by a social contract while at the same time denying them the drug treatment options that would break the cycle.

Sad state of affairs.

[Jackson1999]

51. I agree (except for fairness doctrine). Exactly my point

The reason for my original O.P is that whenever one of these tragedies occurs, the hoplophobes come out and start yelling about their laundry list of demands. "Close the gun show loophole," "Ban assault weapons," "insurance and registration" etc. as specific responses to the tragedies-when NONE of them would have prevented the shootings.

"Sensible" gun laws are those like the expansion of the NICS system following Virginia Tech. A gap in in the system was identified, and it was corrected.

[jmg257]

26. I am not pro-gun control by any stretch, but ...The only way to prevent such tragedies is

to get REAL SERIOUS, and real intrusive about gun control. It would be a multi-step process.

1)set up well-armed agencies (state&fed) to handle the enforcement & imminent fall out
2)amend the constitution - specifically the militia clauses & the 2nd, maybe the 4th, 5th, 8th & 9th amendments, give govt the power to...
3)pass bans on all operable guns, other then single shot black-powder rifles
4)confiscate all guns from private citizens
5)limit access to arms by police and all other agents of the state ('on duty' only)
6)retrieve all 4473s from dealers, CC licenses, FOID cards, NRA rolls, etc., and review the NICS system to identify current and potential gun owners,
7)declare information obtained from #5 is probable cause for warrants
8)go door to door enforcing #2 & #3
9)pass the harshest possible laws for violates - something like mandatory sentences of 10 years for possession, death penalty for gun violence offenders


It won't work right away - will get wrose 1st, but I think eventually we would see some progress.

[rl6214]

28. In other words

An armed military state.

[jmg257]

29. Where only the state is armed.

Still haven't worked out the military with guns - another 'on duty only' rule would have to do, enforced for them and the US Militia.

[EmilyAnne]

35. LOL. I think my grandfather had one of those single shot black powder rifles. He kept it propped

up in the corner of his closet in case of an intruder.
He lived on a farm.
My cousins and I used to tell each other that it was a muzzle loaded rifle and crack up imagining him slowly loading it while a kindly, gentleman burglar waited around to give my grandfather a fair chance.

I grew up around guns, but I am scared of them. So, do you believe that I was sort of agreeing with some of your steps.
Then, I got to #4 and snapped out of it.
I am one of those people who is very comfortable with gun control just because I am afraid of guns.
Totally irrational and even unconstitutional, I know.
But I still want them to just "be gone."
That is why I try not to get too involved.
I will discuss things here on DU, but I would never take any sort of role in pushing for legislation related to gun ownership because I just don't have the knowledge on the issue and I am clearly biased.

[jmg257]

38. He must have been comfortable with what he knew. It's cute actually!

I think "just want them to be gone" is kind of what drove my response. Many owners fear being victims of violence or opression, so that fear must be removed, or reduced anyway, hopefully by making sure that criminals DO 'have to' follow the law - by making ignoring it VERY costly (and by controlling the state's arms too). A few examples of real zero tolerance would be a 'good' start. You would always have 'suicidal crimianls' who don't fear the cost, but they would be removed via attrition.

Of course I am not suggesting this all happen, just that it would be something that MIGHT have a chance of working.


As a side note, just about all types of guns have been used by mass murderers, which is why 'all' conventional guns would be targeted.

As another side note, thanks for responding, and for the sharing about your grandpa!

[virginia mountainman]

40. At step 4..

.You would have blood.....LOTS of blood......

[jmg257]

42. No argument here. We have seen it already, based on 'beliefs', not even reality.

[Statistical]

48. Thank god the founders were smart enough to make #2 real hard.

[spin]

52. WOW...welcome to Nazi Germany...Best gun grabber post I've ever seen!

1) set up well-armed agencies (state&fed) to handle the enforcement & imminent fall out

This sounds very similar to the Schutzstaffel or the SS. I have to admit that the idea will fit right in with Bush the Junior's Dept of Homeland Security. Will you outfit these guys in really neat uniforms.




The rest of the list could be used by the NRA as an example of why you can never trust the Democrats. I can just see someone posting this on a pro-gun board.

5)limit access to arms by police and all other agents of the state ('on duty' only)

So you can trust them with a firearm only when they are in uniform. What would happen if a criminal decided to retaliate against the officer when he was off duty. Recently in the small town I live, we had an ex-con running around and rumors said he was looking to kill a cop, any cop. The local police were damn glad they could carry off duty.

I could waste a lot of my time replying to each of your ideas, but that's exactly what it would be. A waste of my time.

You say that you are "not pro-gun control by any stretch" I would hate to see your list if you were actually pro-gun control. Would you recommend castration for anyone who didn't turn their guns in or would you draw and quarter them?

I have to admit I got a good laugh out of your post. Probably the funniest post I've seen on DU in a week.

[Jackson1999]

57. Don't slam on jmg257

He didn't say he agreed with all of those things, just that that is what would be necessary. I agree with him on that point. Of course, there is no way in Hell I would WANT that to happen.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Like the wingers won't deliberately misconstrue what he said?

He might have phrased his post a little better, frankly. The fine points of rhetoric escapes
many of the talk radio audience, and it could be spun quite easily by people who do not
have DU's best interests at heart...

[jmg257]

62. What didn't you like about my phrasing? What isn't obvious about the intrusive nature

about the only gun laws that might work?

[jmg257]

71. Ahh - I get it now! I am a bit slow sometimes...

Someone could talk about my post as an example of what the Dems are advocating -'those DU liberals' or what-not.

Well sheesh, they wouldn't need any of my hypothetical post to be so sickenly dishonest, they could just make the shit up. If they are up to such nonsense, my post is the least of our worries! (DU's)

[spin]

73. I read posts on DU talking about some of the really stupid things...

said over on FreeRepublic. I can easily imagine a link to your post over there and all the anger and ridicule that would be posted toward "gun-grabbing" Democrats.

[jmg257]

66. Thanks for getting it. nt

[jmg257]

61. Thanks! Of course IF I was anti-gun, this is exactly what I would propose,

because I am smart enough to know it is the only gun laws that would have a chance of working, which is what the OP asked (& he asked pro gun-control folks, hence my explanation that I wasn't anti-gun - as I answered anyway)

And IF I was a Nazi, I would only recommend gun control for groups I didn't like (easier to oppress them then) not FOR EVERYONE.

Of course having been a cop, I trusted plenty of us to be armed on duty and off, including me. But then again, in the real world WE WEREN'T THE ONLY ONES allowed to carry. Which I would think would piss quite a few people off, especially me a civilian now, if ONLY COPS WERE ALLOWED TO CARRY, even when off-duty. Besides being really unjust, that would go against the idea of diminishing the fear of the people, as I stated was needed in the original post.

But please don't feel it is a waste your time, or mine, the post at least gets the point across. But I would rather spend my time shooting, or responding to real anti-gunners, then trying to explain how intrusive it would have to get for the govt to have a chance to control guns.

[spin]

72. Many people read DU...

and your post could very easily be misconstrued.

It would have been a good idea to point out, in no uncertain terms, that you didn't support the suggestions you made.

True, you did say that you were "not pro-gun control by any stretch", however you finished the post with the statement, "It won't work right away - will get worse 1st, but I think eventually we would see some progress." This finishing line would lead any rational individual to assume that you were for the ideas.

I might have finished the post by saying,

In order to implement these laws it would be necessary to change our form of government from a representative democracy to a dictatorship.

The second suggested requirement is to amend the constitution by changing the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th & 9th amendments. It is extremely difficult to pass any amendments. At first you have to convince two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment. In the end it requires three-fourths of the state legislatures to approve of the changes and ratify the amendment. Obviously altering five amendments to allow the following steps is impossible as the political support doesn't exist in Congress and many states are very pro-gun and would never agree with the changes.

We could also cut robbery if we would pass a law that would require that the right hand of any thief would be cut off. While this would be a very effective approach to solving the problem, it would have zero chance of being passed in our country with our form of government.

[jmg257]

76. Points well taken. (& I didn't say my 'idea' was easy!)

I don't like blatant violations of the Constitution, no matter how 'feel good' the law is. Figure amending it would be a necessity - lets the people know what they are in for.

[spin]

89. The cure would probably be worse than the disease. (n/t)

[Caliman73]

106. His post was meant to be extreme

Not sarcastic but very extreme because extreme curtailing of most of our other civil rights would be necessary to "protect" us from gun violence. Any anti-firearm poster needs to know that this would be the only real way to eliminate all guns. The kicker is that guns will still get through and people will still die although probably not as often.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. Self-deleted due to knee jerk reaction. Sorry about that. n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

36. I'm about as anti-gun as you can get. However, there are no laws that exist nor none that can come

into being that can undo the USA's gun culture madness. It's a couple of centuries too late. The glorification of the 'lone wolf', 'the cowboy', 'the Rambo', and 'the wild West', added to our militarization, desire for world domination, and self-taught fear of 'others', can't be undone by legislation.

[jody]

60. Some were murder/suicide incidents. I hope mentally disturbed perpetrators don't discover IED. n/t

[yay]

69. License, registration, insurance, and private NCIS use. My opinion

Alright I love my guns I'll give my opinion on the matter.

License- No problems from me. I see nothing wrong with having to take a class on firearms safety as long as it's inexpensive(<$100). If it were me I'd include it as part of a normal drivers license.

Registration- Big no-no IMO. California had an issue with it. It's the first step to gun grabing.

Insurance- I'd put a no on this as well. It might not be a problem for high volume shooters, but not everyone is. It would be a problem for people who have just have an inexpensive shotgun solely for a little extra security. IIRC a remington 870 can be had for <$200 and a box of 00 buck is <$20. On top of that what happens if you fail to or can't afford to pay your insurance? This is just a bad idea all the way around.

Private use of NCIS- You have to get quite a bit of info from the person, including drivers lisence #, social security #, ect, ect. This could cause identity theft problems.

My $0.02

[spin]

74. On the use of the NCIS system by private sellers...

why not just go to a gun store and have them run a background check for a reasonable fee? You as the seller gets a form that says the buyer passed the background check and a receipt documenting the exchange with no serial #'s etc. kept by the store.

[yay]

80. You can already do that

It's called co-signing. It would be the only way I would sell a gun around here.

[Hoopla Phil]

82. Here is the problem with this. Look at it from a criminals point of view that

wants to get a gun but cannot legally. Check out the want ads in the sporting goods section for firearms for sale. You call the guy up and ask about purchasing it and looking at it before the sale. You find out that the gun is in the sellers home and that you can come look at it anytime after 6 pm as no one will be there to show it to you till then. Then the seller will meet you the next day at the gun shop to do the transfer. The bad guy now has a time and place to break into that he knows has a gun in it.

Now I understand that that CAN (and probably does) happen now but if NICS is required on private sales this kind of thing will likely happen very often.

[yay]

86. Most people I've talked too

Show it off outside of their home. They arrange a meeting place like at a parking lot or the range, or something like that.

[X_Digger]

94. Agreed, never sold one from my house, never will. n/t

[spin]

87. Interesting, never thought of that...

of course, I only sell firearms to people I personally know who have concealed carry permits. Or I trade the firearm at a gun store for another firearm. I rarely sell any firearms, because every time I do, I end up regretting selling the weapon. Another possibility is to leave the firearm at the pistol range and allow the range master to sell it for a fee. He could run the background check.

The concept of advertising in a newspaper and allowing some stranger to come to my home is one that I wouldn't consider. I might meet the buyer at the gun store or the range and if he liked the firearm, then we could finish the transaction.

[ManiacJoe]

83. The problem is defining "reasonable fee".

Most folks I know will tell you that the gun stores that are willing to run the checks for non-store-customers are charging fees that are far from reasonable.

[spin]

88. f the law required a NCIS check for private sales...

it could also require a gun store to run the check for the same fee that it would charge for the firearms the store sells. If the gun store refused to run the check or overcharged, the gun store could lose the license to sell firearms or be fined.

I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV. My idea might have some major drawbacks. If so, please inform.

[ManiacJoe]

96. The "same fee" idea would need some tweaking.

Currently the fee for a successful NICS check is usually zero (included in the cost of the gun). However, a failed check currently will usually get you the same high fee currently charged for non-customer checks.

[spin]

98. I did a little research and found this.info for out of state buyers

on a gun store site.


Most local dealers will charge a "Transfer" fee for each firearm they receive for you. It is usually from $15 to $30, but varies by dealer. Your local dealer will also have to run your "NICS" background check which will cost an additional $10. Of course you have to pay the $10 NICS fee no matter what dealer you buy from. The NICS check will be done once they receive the firearm and you come in to pick it up. You will have to pay the NICS fee whether you are approved or denied.
http://www.skipsfirearms.com/policy.htm

Ten dollars doesn't sound unreasonable for the background check and fifteen to 30 dollars for the paperwork should be fair. The dealer deserves to be compensated.

[ManiacJoe]

84. We have plenty of laws; what we need is enforcement.

What we need is for the government to get serious about prosecuting the sellers for the private sales to prohibited buyers.

[yay]

91. Yes and no

Not always possible to tell if someone is a prohibited buyer. Are you really going to throw someone in the slammer because they sold their pistol for rent?

Unless you're talking about straw buyers, then in that case I completely agree.

We also need to start enforcing our minimum sentence laws.

[ManiacJoe]

95. No lookup process is 100% reliable.

However, the seller should have to show that a good faith attempt was made. The dealers get this with the required NICS check. Private sellers end up having to be a bit more creative, like seeing a state issued CCW license or personally knowing the buyer. The method used to comply with the law is not important, but the fact that the seller complied is important. If a seller does not make a good faith attempt to verify the eligibility of the buyer, and if the buyer turns out to be ineligible, then the seller should be prosecuted for the illegal sale.

Most private sellers currently get away with not checking the buyer because the vast majority of the buyers are actually eligible even though the seller does not know that. The fact that you compliance is based on dumb luck does not change the fact that you are in compliance.

[spin]

92. The politicians realize that it's far cheaper...

to put some words on paper than it is to actually enforce those words.

And they realize if they come up with a new "feel good" law, many people will feel they are really doing a great job and vote to return them to office.

The problem they face is that people are beginning to realize that the only thing unenforced laws are good for is to use the paper they are published on to wipe your ass.

[Jackson1999]

90. UPDATE

So, after more than 1500 views and 87 comments, not one anti-gunner could come up with one example of a law or laws that would have prevented the recent massacres (short of total gun confiscation). Interestingly, several gun control supporters stated that we need to deal with the root causes of violence (which I agree with).

If you are pro-gun control, then fine. But whenever you see BC or others following these tragedies spouting off about AWB and "gun show loopholes." Ask them how their proposal would have prevented the tragedy.

Also, if they cannot answer that question, then I am sorry, but they are just exploiting the tragedy to push their broader agenda.

[spin]

93. The plan of the true anti-gun people was always...

to achieve total gun confiscation one small step at a time.

First they find a label to pin on whatever class of firearm they want to ban or prohibit. "Saturday Night Special", "Plastic Gun", "Vest Buster" and "Assault Weapon" are just some examples.

Then they lie and obscure the truth to confuse people. They say the firearms they have demonized serve absolutely no purpose except to kill and if only we outlaw these terrible weapons we will be much safer.

If laws do get passed that might actually make a real difference, they don't insist that these laws be enforced. If that happened, violent crime would decrease and that would ruin their agenda.

But the saddest part is that they do use every tragedy to gain support.

It looks like they'll have to try harder.

Support for gun control at its lowest in 50 years

April, 2009 Gallup Poll

In a Gallup poll that was conducted last week before the gun massacre in Binghamton, NY, just 29% of respondents said they thought hand guns should be banned.

In the first year the poll was conducted, 1959, 60% of respondents were in favor of banning hand guns.

Opposition to banning hand guns has risen to 69%.
April, 2009 Gallup Poll

http://www.examiner.com/x-1172-Birmingham-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Support-for-gun-control-at-its-lowest-in-50-years

Perhaps people are smarter than the anti-gunners believe and they see the gun control efforts as "crying wolf".

But there is a real problem with firearms and violence in our society and we can find ways to reduce this problem.

[jody]

97. Wonder how the next Gallup Poll will compare to the recent 29%? If it remains in that range, my

conjecture will be that law-abiding citizens know it's up to them to provide for their own self-defense.

If that happens, then We the People will have declared in unmistakable terms that gun-grabbers are number one:

[east texas lib]

102. IMHO, we've always been on our own...

Some prepare, some do not. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

[guardian]

103. Signs

Laws requiring signs that say "This is a Mass Murder free zone."

[krispos42]

109. Well, let's see

The most obvious is a ban on private ownership. The people doing these kinds of shootings aren't career criminals knocking off rivals, killing an inconvienent witness, or eliminating somebody that offered gross insult; those people will always have guns. However a ban on private ownership would probably prevent the otherwise-ordinary person from deciding "Today is a good day to die" and going on a rampage because his Pop-Tart got scorched in the toaster.


Requiring all private firearms be held in a government armory with, say, a 72-hour waiting period before withdrawal might have helped. :shrug:


A ban on semi-automatics, which would be autoloading handguns and any gun that was ever considered an "assault weapon": all derivitives of the AR-15, AK-47, SKS, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Mini-14, G-3, FAL, etc., would be disallowed. This would still leave lever-action, bolt-action, pump-action, and single-shot guns on the market.



A ban on all repeating firearms. This would leave single-shot and double-barreled rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

[Joe Steel]

111. GRAB

General Recovery And Ban

1. Recovery: Within 30 days of this procedure's implementation, all handguns, or other specified guns, in private possession shall be delivered to a law enforcement agency.

2. Prosecution: Persons found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, after the expiration of the 30 day Recovery period will be guilty of a Class A felony and shall be prosecuted.

3. Reeducation: Convicted offenders found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, shall be transported to a reeducation camp for instruction in the community's expectations.

4. Perfection: Persons found to be in possession of a handgun, or other specified gun, after reeducation shall be made harmless.

[umccoyw]

112. im not pro gun control

like has been said a million times before the only people who are going to follow the laws are law abiding citizens

[Unrepentant Fenian]

115. Keeping them out of the republican's hands!