I'm much more concerned about who has a gun than what gun they have

[Recursion]

Over the past few decades we've seen by my count 4 major types of legislative initiatives about gun rights and restrictions:

1. Regulations of features and types of guns, eg the Hughes amendment and the assault weapons ban.

2. Restrictions on who can purchase guns, from whom, eg the Brady Law and the ongoing attempts to close the "gun show loophole" (a name I hate, but we're stuck with it)

3. Expansions of who can carry guns in public, eg the transition of multiple states to "shall-issue" (anyone not legally disqualified can receive a concealed carry permit)

4. Expansions of where they can carry those guns, eg concealed/open carry in parks, churches, nonsecure airport space, etc.

1 and 2 have been (to the first approximation) pushed by Democrats and resisted by Republicans, and done at a Federal level (though the recent state gun laws in NY, MD, etc. probably represent a tectonic shift towards state action by Democrats).

3 and 4 have been (again, approximately) pushed by Republicans and resisted by Democrats, and done largely in the state houses (though Republicans are now trying to consolidate some of their statewide gains Federally (concealed-carry reciprocity, carry in national parks, etc.)).

Lesson one that comes to mind is that dealing with issues state by state can be much more effective, particularly if it stays under the national radar.

In general, I like 2 and 3, and dislike 1 and 4, so I don't really have a partisan "home" on the gun issue (and I'm not remotely a single issue voter on this). I like 2 in particular because that's what really worries me: some people can be trusted with guns, and some can't. If someone can't be trusted with a gun, I don't give a damn whether it's an AR-15 or a revolver. And if he can be trusted with a gun, the type of gun he has isn't something I worry about. There's not some mystical power in an AR-15 that turns people into criminals. Magazine limits are interesting, and I don't think they're unconstitutional or an undue burden on gun owners, but the vast majority of people who use guns in murders never need more than the first or second bullet.

It is to the detriment of everyone that the only thing that gets us talking about gun control nationally is random mass shootings. They are horrible, they are frightening, and they soak up media attention, but just to be blunt they aren't the problem. The problem is not that dozens of people are killed every year in mass shootings, but that nearly 10,000 people are killed every year in "normal" shootings and nearly 20,000 people use guns to take their own lives.

It's detrimental because it makes us ask the wrong questions, such as "how can we keep the mentally ill from getting guns?". Mentally ill people are orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of gun crime than perpetrators. And while only a bare majority of mass shooters use handguns, essentially all "normal" shootings are done with handguns, as well as nearly all gun suicides.

It's detrimental because mass shootings are much more likely to be done with first-purchase weapons than other shootings, so we concentrate on first-sale restrictions rather than investigating trafficking (though that said I completely support 100% background checks on all transfers, preferably done through a federal firearms licensing scheme).

It's detrimental because (donning asbestos suit now) it makes people ignore the laws that the GOP and NRA are blocking the government from enforcing and attempt to pass new laws that somehow won't be equally hamstrung.

In my opinion, fully funding and staffing the ATF (including a permanent director) and instructing them to engage in some high profile stings of shady illegal dealers and buyers would do much, much more to reduce gun crime than passing new laws (which I don't trust would be enforced any better than the current ones are).

[rdharma]

1. Universal background checks and registration would provide the biggest 'bang' for the buck.

The "gun show loophole" is a loophole only because there isn't a requirement for background checks to be conducted at gun shows in many states (private sales).

I agree with you about the value of attempting to regulate "features". The important thing is to keep firearms out of the hands of disqualified persons..... period.

[Logical]

2. With 50,000 hand guns stolen a year, it means anyone can get a gun. Anyone. n-t

[Recursion]

3. I agree. What do you do about that?

That's why I'm more interested in trafficking enforcement than anything else.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

33. Those are the low-hanging fruit. If no guns were stolen ...

... then the demand would be met by imported (smuggled) supply. Guns are available in many places, and supply will meet demand.

[jmg257]

4. IF you had someone you wouldn't trust to have a gun, and

such a person was going to go on a murderous rampage, would you prefer he had a revolver, w/maybe a few speedloaders, or an AR-15 with several 30 rounds mags?

The latter combination sure seems like it has the potential for more damage.

Of course it only takes a couple shots to shoot a couple people.
So of course, there is always the very tough process of deciding just whom we don't trust, and making sure they have no access to ANY guns. Not all that easy...

Unless we have no issue with affecting everyone, or
At the least without substantially reducing the number of guns that are accessible to just about anyone who wants one. And IF forced to compromise, especially of those that represent the greatest danger in different circumstances (i.e. hi cap, hi rate of fire, easy concealment or whatever & etc.)

[Recursion]

5. The revolver is easier to conceal, the rifle is easier to reload

If he had the rifle, the spree would probably be harder for him to start ("why is that guy carrying a rifle?&quot and harder for others to stop. I'm not sure. The pistol is also easier to use at close range; I'd rather someone in the same room with me trying to kill me had a rifle than a revolver (though I'd obviously really rather he have neither). Then again I was in the Marines for several years and have some idea of what a response in either situation should be.

At the least without substantially reducing the number of guns that are accessible to just about anyone who wants one. And IF forced to compromise, especially of those that represent the greatest danger in different circumstances (i.e. hi cap, hi rate of fire, easy concealment or whatever & etc.)

Then why aren't we focused handguns, which kill hundreds of times as many people as shotguns and rifles?

[flamin lib]

14. The weapon of choice is shifting to the relatively short high capacity and rapid fire AR style

rifles. They are designed for close combat and urban warfare door to door encounters. They are, by design, an offensive weapon.

WW I rifles were designed for trench warfare; two ditches 400-600 yards apart. The technology available at the time dictated long barrels and heavy bullets.

WW II tactics had some of the same requirements but began the transition to street warfare which placed greater emphasis on rapid fire and portability.

Vietnam was jungle fighting where line of sight is limited to quite short distances negating the need for accuracy at great distances.

To turn around in the average hallway with a WW I or II infantry rifle requires turning it vertical whereas an AR with the stock collapsed is almost as maneuverable as a handgun.

Admittedly it is more difficult to conceal but if an act is premeditated there really isn't much warning or time to react. Aurora and Sandy Hook are good examples.

[jmg257]

18. The revolver also typically has 6/7 shots w/o reload, the AR has 30/31 hi-power rifle rounds.

I'd much prefer he had a revolver.

Identifying would-be rampagers with rifles is also harder when carrying around loaded guns is perfectly fine in so many areas. Think of that clown in JC Penny just after Newtown...idiot like that needs a foot up his ass, except his head is in the way.


Why aren't we focused on handguns? Because those would be even harder to ban of course. Gotta figure those pushing AWBs saw a better shot at getting more backing recently. At least mag limits works a bit on both.

Better to just address them all, AND who might have access to those remaining. Of course lawful owners will be affected.

[Recursion]

20. The power of a 357 magnum is comparable to a 223 centerfire

900 Joules vs. 950; not really that much of a difference. The Marine in me still says I'd rather have someone trying to aim a rifle at me at close range than a revolver, though I doubt I'd have anything like the reaction time I did 10 years ago when I was still in.

But, yes, a semi-auto can certainly fire a lot more rounds in a short period of time than a revolver; there's no way around that. I also think this is still fixating on random mass shootings which, as I argued in the OP, aren't the real problem here compared with the non-mass shootings that are thousands of times more common, kill hundreds of times as many people, and are almost entirely done with handguns.

[jmg257]

26. Its more fixating on gun deaths. And the notion of reducing them by substantially

reducing the number of guns. The revolver vs AR was to also show how one is potentially much more dangerous, in some circumstances. But of course most all gun types have proven to be potentially dangerous in various circumstance - some more then others - hence the notion to address them 'all', AND the access to those that remian.

[flamin lib]

6. Far too many laws are intentionally un-inforceable.

70,000 + attempts to falsify background checks applications, only a handful prosecuted. Why? The evidence of the crime must be destroyed in 24 hours. Ya' gotta wonder how bad the offenders who were prosecuted musta' been to have the FBI drop everything and act in 24 hours.

BATF&E funded at the same level it was 20 years ago. No Director approved in a decade.

BATF&E tasked with monitoring gun dealers but forbidden by law requiring inventories of gun store stocks.

The gun lobby is extremely good at planting internal blocks inside legislation and writing bills that conflict with enforcing existing laws.

[Recursion]

9. We need traceability to work in one direction but not the other

That is, police need to be able to take a given gun and figure out who was the last legal owner of it, without being able to look up somebody's name and see what guns they legally own.

It's a technical problem; there's a technical solution (I can think of three workable ones off of the top of my head), but that would be a hugely good thing.

[upaloopa]

17. I think there should be records tracing the gun from the manufacturer

To the latest owner. If a gun is used in a crime and the shooter is not the last registered owner than the gun had better have been reported stolen or some other valid reason if not then another crime was committed transferring ownership to the shooter.

[Recursion]

23. I'd like that too, but I don't see a way to get it

Gun owners, rightly or wrongly, are dead set against the Federal government being able to look up their name and see what guns they own. That's a Rubicon I'd like to cross, but it's not crossable right now. What I think might work is something that let's the Feds go backwards (take a gun and find its owner) but not forwards (take a person and find the guns they own), so it couldn't just be a list of all the guns and who the last person who bought them was. Like I said, there are technical solutions here, but this is absolute political poison, and I'd rather the states jump out in front of this first.

[upaloopa]

37. I don't want law abiding people being bothered

just a trace on a gun used in a crime.

[geek tragedy]

7. Permit them all, but strict registration for them all.

Also require liability insurance. Let the NRA's sponsors sell it.

The problem of missing/loose guns would diminish if people knew that every gun that left their hands could be traced to them.

[Recursion]

8. I'm for registration, personally, but man that's a hard hill to climb

I think knowing who has what gun is pretty much step 1 of having a well-regulated militia. That said, it makes most gun owners absolutely apoplectic. I think operator licensing is a better way to start, since that doesn't have any direct tie to ownership. I would like registration, but I don't expect it in my lifetime.

Also require liability insurance.

The DC city council is moving on this. I'm not particularly excited about it (I doubt anyone who is compliant with the insurance requirement would be much of a problem), but we'll be able to see what it does.

[geek tragedy]

10. I think you could get registration as part of a global

deal on gun permits, interstate conceal/carry, etc. Throw in a tax writeoff for old guns turned in for a trade-up.

I honestly don't think we'll see any progress absent registration, in terms of trafficking or levels of violence etc.

[Recursion]

13. Yeah, true; I don't think either side wants to give in to the other

I'm not usually a "both sides do it" person, but this issue really does have two blocs that absolutely refuse to concede anything to the other side.

[geek tragedy]

22. Part of the issue is that there's no bargaining

or attempts to address multiple concerns in the same bill.

[Recursion]

25. Agreed 100%

I've done a couple of OPs on this and gotten nowhere, but I think tying registration or making all transfers go through an FFL to reciprocity on concealed carry or overturning the Hughes amendment might at least get somewhere, and that it would be better than the nothing we ended up with this time.

A straw poll of my conservative friends showed that there was some interest in trading universal background checks on all sales for Federal voter ID requirements -- not that I support that, but it's an example that there may be leverage in places we aren't thinking of.

[geek tragedy]

30. But, who's going to negotiate such a deal?

Negotiations with Republicans in Congress are pretty much pointless since they take their marching orders from the NRA.

So, there'd have to be negotiations involving the NRA, the mayors, governors, feds, Congress, Brady activists, law enforcement.

[Recursion]

32. And there it is. We need conservative buy-in from the start. So, stalemate again

Sigh.

[geek tragedy]

35. We need gun manufacturers buy-in from the start, actually.

They can rein in the NRA.

Of course, this would all have to be done in secret.

[Recursion]

38. You know, Biden didn't meet with NSSF or any manufacturers that I know of

Though he did meet with the NRA.

[Chan790]

46. "I doubt anyone who is compliant with the insurance requirement would be much of a problem"

I think you have the inverse of it.

The idea isn't that compliant people would be a problem...it's that you could then criminalize failure to possess insurance with very little opposition from the NRA (they'd be likely to offer such insurance themselves) and that the insurance itself would be exceptionally-cheap for the 99% of gun-owners who are never going to be a problem: aren't stockpiling, have never been arrested, practice safe-storage (locked gun vaults and trigger-locks), aren't buying exotic weapons, military-styled arms or extended magazines, are not applying for concealed-carry and have taken a firearms-safety or firearms-instructor course. All those things that you can't legally mandate gun-owners do or make illegal...you can reward them with lower premiums for compliance.

Further, firearm insurance would necessitate universal registration...it's a backdoor to a such an objective. Nobody is going to insure someone for something like firearms-liability unless they know exactly what they're insuring.

[Recursion]

49. Well, DC registers handguns already. That's how they "banned" them.

DC didn't out-and-out ban handguns in as many words, they just said "you need a permit" and then permanently closed the office that issues them. So now that SCOTUS is forcing them to allow registration again, they're trying to find ways not to (the back door approach you mentioned).

That said, if you want an example of why gun owners are not happy with the idea of registration, there you are: the power to register is also the power to refuse to register, barring a statutory requirement.

[upaloopa]

11. The number of people that can be killed in a few minutes

is something that should be taken into account. A shooter with a 30 round clip in a semi automatic can kill many more people in a short time than one with just a pistol or shotgun.
If the shooters in Aurora and Sandy Hook did not have semi automatics less people would be dead. In Sandy Hook that means some of those dead children would have gone home instead of the morgue.

[Recursion]

12. True, but that net gets very wide very quick and catches most guns out there

That's the big problem there. That's like 75% of privately owned guns, and basically all new sales in the past several decades. That's why the assault weapons bans ended up being so contorted: you can't actually ban every gun as effective as an AR-15 because then you really would be going after almost every gun people actually have.

[upaloopa]

19. That's the old "we can't stop everything so we shouldn't try to stop anything" bull shit line

Not buying it
The reason there is no assault weapons ban is because legislators are getting falated by the gun manufactures.

[Recursion]

21. No, it's not that

I'm saying a law mandating that the gun Lanza used have a differently-shaped grip is stupid, period. (You know Monte-Carlo style AR's would be in production before the ink was dry on a new AWB, right?)

[jmg257]

27. But as we discussed numerous times, there are easy ways to address that, bills have tried

in the past.

They too were not all that popular.

[upaloopa]

29. I don't know shit about gun parts and don't care to know

I am a citizen of this country. I have a right to ask my representative to vote for an assault weapons ban and I have and will continue to do so. Of course my reps are Barbara B, DiFi and Louis Capps who agree with me.

[Recursion]

31. OK, so you'll force Bushmaster to change the shape of its grip. You have that right

I just question that there's any point of doing so.

[upaloopa]

34. Well if that is so knowable than just maybe the law can be

written to fix that.

[Recursion]

36. You would have to ban semi-automatics as a platform to fix that

which was, of course, what Feinstein wanted to do back in 94 but couldn't get the votes for.

As long as semi-automatics are legal, people will be able to fire large numbers of bullets in short amounts of time. But that's also most guns owned by most people, so Feinstein has spent 20 years trying to pick at the corners of that, with very little to show for it.

[upaloopa]

40. Again that is because of gun manufacturer money

pumped into our political system. Stop that and we would have much more legislation. We need public funded campaigns then the people for or against will make the decisions not the richest lobby.

[premium]

41. Very little?

Let's be honest, after the AWB sunset ted in 2004, she's had nothing to show for it, and the defeat of her latest AWB in the Senate was an embarrassment to her, although she had been warned that it would fail miserably.

But, I'll give her kudos for sticking to her principles on this issue.

[Recursion]

43. I have a sense for euphemism

It was an electoral and policy fiasco. But OTOH it's popular with the base, and that's important too.

[premium]

47. Yes, it is popular with the base,

but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, I'm more in tune with your idea, it's not the gun, it's whose hands it's in.

[premium]

39. Sen. Feinstein's mild AWB went down in flames,

and rather spectacularly, 40 yeas/60 nays, that means that several Dems. also voted against it, what leads you to believe that a stronger worded ban would have any chance in hell of passing?
And even if it did by some fluke/miracle, it did pass the Senate, what chance would it have of surviving in the House?

[upaloopa]

44. It wouldn't as long as the legislators are bought

by the gun manufacturers.
I hope some day we get public financed campaigns so the people and not lobbies are the ones represented. And if at that time the majority support the status quo in relation to guns than I will accept that.

[premium]

48. Fair enough. nt.

[geek tragedy]

24. True, but small capacity handguns are by far the bigger problem. nt

[Recursion]

28. We had some regulatory success with the "ring of fire" gunmakers in the 1990s

Maybe if we funded and staffed the ATF again we could re-do something like that.

[Orsino]

15. We could play misery poker here...

...but I'll opine that sometimes, at least, it makes a difference whether or not a person suffering a breakdown can fire full-auto or not.

If body counts are given some weight in the discussion.

[Recursion]

16. Full auto has been illegal for 80 years or so and there's no real movement to change that

I don't think anybody's talking about overturning the NFA and making automatic weapons generally available; if they are, I'd definitely oppose that.

[bowens43]

42. Why? All gun owners are potential murderers

and a danger to themselves, their families and their communities.

[Recursion]

45. You know, we had 41 constructive posts before you... (nt)