Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Chas_P]

[*]Requiring training and a license to own and use any firearm.

I am curious as to how this could be enforced. It should be easy enough for new firearms purchases, just like new vehicle purchases; the dealer is responsible for title application and license purchase. But how would you suggest we get existing gun owners (including the thugs and criminally insane) to become licensed and register their weapons?

[y66]

Look, if you’re not going to take a stand on something like this, I don’t know what you’re going to take a stand on.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/nyregion/chris-jacobs-congress-guns.html?campaign_id=57&emc=edit_ne_20220603&instance_id=63182&nl=evening-briefing&regi_id=59211987&segment_id=94197&te=1&user_id=2d8b72dd84a9ff194896ed87b2d9c72a

[Cyberyeti]

FWIW, I have a somewhat different view about a lot of this.

 

I don't have a real issue if people want to own assault weapons or even, hypothetically, a machine gun.

 

However, I don't think that people should be able to carry these or even have them at home.

If you want an AR-15 or an AK-47 or whatever then it lives at the gun range and it doesn't leave the gun range.

 

Same with pistols in almost all situations.

 

If you want a weapon for home defense (and you want to keep it at home) then get a shotgun

If you want a weapon for hunting (and you want to carry it around when you're hunting) then get a bolt action rifle or a shotgun.

 

If its easy to hide and it throws a lot of bullets quickly then you don't to carry it around.

 

I can potentially see an argue that some people might be allows to have a six chamber revolver or some such.

I'm genuine torn on this.

 

This is close to how it works in the UK for all firearms except licenced hunters with rifles and farmers with shotguns. Assault rifles not permitted at all.

[hrothgar]

I am curious as to how this could be enforced. It should be easy enough for new firearms purchases, just like new vehicle purchases; the dealer is responsible for title application and license purchase. But how would you suggest we get existing gun owners (including the thugs and criminally insane) to become licensed and register their weapons?

 

By passing a law and starting to enforcing it.

And not expecting perfection, but rather an improvement on the existing system.

 

It might make sense to start placing strict limits on purchasing ammunition.

 

If you don't have a licensed gun, then you don't really need to be buying ammo...

[kenberg]

I am curious as to how this could be enforced. It should be easy enough for new firearms purchases, just like new vehicle purchases; the dealer is responsible for title application and license purchase. But how would you suggest we get existing gun owners (including the thugs and criminally insane) to become licensed and register their weapons?

 

Richard beat me to it with a reply and said about what I would say, but I'll add a bit. I distrust analogies but try this. Requiring drivers to be licensed does not totally stop the unlicensed driving of cars. But perhaps you would agree that if no license were required, there would be many more people driving cars who should not be driving cars.

 

To take a concrete personal example, I was arrested when I was 17 for some minor stuff, the details are boring, and I was searched. I did not have a gun but suppose I did. If a license were required and I did not have one, the situation would suddenly become a much more serious problem for me.

 

A point that I think has been made several times: No one claims that passing laws will totally eliminate gun violence. What we claim is that it can make a huge difference. For one thing, it would express society's view that gun ownership is no casual matter, it's different from owning a set of boxing gloves. Many people, not everyone but most of us, are at least somewhat influenced by society's expectations for acceptable behavior. Where I live, I wear a shirt when I mow the lawn, even though I would rather not. The laws of this country, for reasons that totally escape me, encourage people to carry guns.

 

Countries that have substantial gun laws typically have lesser gun violence. This is unlikely to be a coincidence.

 

So let's do it. It will help. Let's do it. Details need discussion. Of course, details need discussion. But let's do it.

[PassedOut]

I am curious as to how this could be enforced. It should be easy enough for new firearms purchases, just like new vehicle purchases; the dealer is responsible for title application and license purchase. But how would you suggest we get existing gun owners (including the thugs and criminally insane) to become licensed and register their weapons?

I see that Richard and Ken have already addressed this and I certainly realize that I have no complete and immediate fix for our predicament. As you point out, the easiest case to handle is at the point of purchase and would stop an 18-year-old from walking out of a store with a new AR-15 on the way to school. For the many existing firearms, compliance would be voluntary and people with ill intent would not do it.

 

However, folks who do comply would still be able to keep the firearms that they need (or think that they need) to protect their homes and families and for hunting. And, over time, more and more weapons would be confiscated for non-compliance. So far as I can see, we have locked ourselves into some tragic injuries and deaths for quite a while, but that's no reason to give up on trying to address our problem now.

[Winstonm]

I would also like to point out that the mass shootings that come to my mind were carried out by those who were considered law-abiding citizens until they were no longer.

[Chas_P]

I would also like to point out that the mass shootings that come to my mind were carried out by those who were considered law-abiding citizens until they were no longer.

An astute observation of the blatantly obvious. You might also point out that those who are willing to disobey current law would have absolutely no problem disobeying a new law.

[PeterAlan]

An astute observation of the blatantly obvious. You might also point out that those who are willing to disobey current law would have absolutely no problem disobeying a new law.

"No problem" in terms of their moral compass, perhaps. But the point of gun control is to limit their future opportunities to break laws either relating to or involving the use of guns.

[y66]

From Retire These Gun Myths by Mona Charen at The Bulwark:

 

As I write, there are reports of yet another attack in Tulsa. Our mass shooting problem—there have been an average of two per month for the past 13 years —arises from a familiar stew of history, culture, law, and commerce. And certain facts loom large. Yes, we are among the most violent countries in the advanced industrial world, and have long been. Yes, guns have always been plentiful whereas mass shootings are a relatively new disease. Yes, mass shootings represent a small fraction of gun deaths in America. And yes, the Second Amendment makes limiting guns more difficult here than in Canada, Australia, or other places. Those are big, hulking obstacles to solving our problem. But there are other assumptions that are trotted out regularly in our hoary gun discussions that are less daunting than they appear.

 

Consider the matter of guns in circulation. We are often told that there are about 393 million guns in private hands in the United States—more than one per person. How then, some demand, can we expect to make a dent in the problem by instituting controls that affect only new gun sales? All that would do, they insist, is make it more difficult for law-abiding people to obtain guns, while criminals would always have easy access.

 

The sheer number of guns in private hands needn’t intimidate us into inaction. We have 289 million cars in America and manage to regulate, license, and control them in various ways. The number is not the point. It’s the laws that matter.

 

Here is a list of 22 mass shootings since 2012. The Aurora, Colorado shooter (I do not publish the names) purchased his guns just before killing people in a movie theater. 12 dead. The Navy Yard shooter purchased his guns before his rampage. 12 dead. The killer who attacked Charleston’s “Mother Emanuel” church purchased his Glock after a botched background check. 9 dead. The Roseburg, Oregon shooter purchased his guns. 10 dead. The San Bernardino shooter got a friend to purchase the guns he used in his attack. 14 dead. The Orlando shooter purchased his guns legally a week before killing people in a nightclub. 49 dead. The Las Vegas killer purchased 33 of the 49 guns found in his hotel room in the year prior to his shooting spree at a country music festival. 58 dead. The Sutherland Springs, Texas killer was able to purchase his firearms despite a history of domestic violence. 25 dead. The Parkland, Florida shooter purchased his weapon a year before attacking Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school. 17 dead. The Pittsburgh assassin legally purchased his rifle and three handguns before shooting up the Tree of Life synagogue. 11 dead. The Thousand Oaks killer? Legally purchased. 12 dead. Virginia Beach? Legally purchased. 12 dead. El Paso? Legally purchased. 23 dead. Dayton? Legally purchased. 9 dead. Atlanta? Legally purchased. 8 dead. Boulder? Legally purchased a few days before a grocery store attack. 10 dead. San Jose? Legally purchased. 9 dead. Buffalo? Legally purchased. 10 dead. And Uvalde, legally purchased days before the attack on Robb elementary school. 21 dead.

 

Of those 22 cases, there were just three that did not involve a legal sale to the killer: The Midland, Texas shooter purchased his rifle through a private sale before killing 7 strangers; the Santa Fe shooter, who killed 10 at his high school, used guns legally owned by his father; and the shooter who killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut used guns bought by his mother.

 

Perhaps all of these killers would have been able to lay hands on guns already owned by individuals. Maybe. But it would have been much harder than walking into a gun store. In most cases, these killers are mentally unstable, impulsive, and socially maladroit. Purchasing a weapon via private sale would be more challenging.

 

So making it more difficult to purchase guns—say, by adding more complete background checks, increasing the minimum age to 21, requiring waiting periods, or adopting “red flag laws” that make it possible for family members or police to ask courts to have a person’s guns temporarily removed—would have inhibited the vast majority of the killers listed above.

If we hope to unstick our politics and permit compromise and common-sense reforms for heart-wrenching problems, we’re going to have to reform the way we choose our leaders. GOP politicians don’t dance to the NRA’s tune for the money. They do it because that’s what Republican primary voters demand. And Democrats who grandstand about gun confiscation are appealing to their left flank—the voters who show up for primaries. In the matter of guns, as with other pressing national concerns, the solutions cannot be unlocked until the incentives facing politicians change—and that requires nonpartisan primaries.

[Chas_P]

So far as I can see, we have locked ourselves into some tragic injuries and deaths for quite a while.

Yes we have. But my argument is that there are still more good people than there are evil people. I hope I'm right. If wrong we're all doomed regardless of which side of the political spectrum you align with. I agree with Peter_Alan that we need a culture shift. We need to shift back to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". And, in my opinion, "Happiness" does not include blowing away 10-yearolds with an AR-15.

[Winstonm]

What seems obvious to me is that laws involving the sale of guns must severely punish the sellers, including personal sales and gun show sales with the use of undercover agents attempting buys. Not only should the illegal attempt to buy be charged but the seller also must be held accountable and the penalty must be severe.

 

There should also be no protection for manufacturers from civil liabilities.

[Chas_P]

What seems obvious to me is that laws involving the sale of guns must severely punish the sellers.

If the law allows it, why punish the merchant? Just change the law. But I agree with your thoughts that an 18 year-old shouldn't be allowed to purchase a semi-automatic weapon and 375 rounds of ammo as did Salvador Ramos. Change the law. Don't punish the merchant who did nothing illegal....ill-considered maybe, but not illegal.

 

 

There should also be no protection for manufacturers from civil liabilities.

 

I don't agree with that. The manufacturer is not responsible for the lunacy of his customer. Should Ford be liable for the little 16 year-old prick in Texas suffering from "affluenza" who mowed down 6-8 people with an F350?

[PeterAlan]

And, in my opinion, "Happiness" does not include blowing away 10-yearolds with an AR-15.

We can certainly agree on that. But does "Happiness" include blowing anything away with an AR-15? With all its collateral risks to children's lives?

[johnu]

 

Apparently America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a door problem, at least according to the QOP. For years, the QOP has advocated for a closed door America, at least when it came to non-white, non-christian, and LBGT people. Now, taking it one step further, the QOP says more than 1 door is the reason for gun massacres.

 

Makes sense to me, taking this to the next step, maybe we should get rid of all doors, and people would have to enter buildings through windows and skylights. That should almost eliminate gun massacres compared to the QOP 1 door solution.

[hrothgar]

If the law allows it, why punish the merchant? Just change the law. But I agree with your thoughts that an 18 year-old shouldn't be allowed to purchase a semi-automatic weapon and 375 rounds of ammo as did Salvador Ramos. Change the law. Don't punish the merchant who did nothing illegal....ill-considered maybe, but not illegal.

 

The point here is that we are going to make this illegal.

We are talking about changing the laws.

 

I don't agree with that. The manufacturer is not responsible for the lunacy of his customer.

Should Ford be liable for the little 16 year-old prick in Texas suffering from "affluenza" who mowed down 6-8 people with an F350?

 

Here in the United States, in almost all cases, manufacturers assume product liability

 

There is a specific carve out for gun manufacturers that shields them

This change was introduced very recently. (2005)

 

They are a dramatic outlier, both with respect to time and scope

[Cyberyeti]

 

I don't agree with that. The manufacturer is not responsible for the lunacy of his customer. Should Ford be liable for the little 16 year-old prick in Texas suffering from "affluenza" who mowed down 6-8 people with an F350?

 

 

No, but should the car dealer that sold something like that to somebody like that be liable if the driver can't produce some advanced driving diploma ? Should more be the merchant than the manufacturer. If you sell somebody vast quantities of ammo ... admittedly somebody could pick up small quantities of ammo from several places, but make it illegal to possess more than n bullets.

[Chas_P]

. But does "Happiness" include blowing anything away with an AR-15?

Well I've seen video of hunters in Texas shooting wild hogs with AR-15s from a helicopter. That probably made the hunters happy. But it probably made the wild hogs unhappy.

[Gilithin]

Well I've seen video of hunters in Texas shooting wild hogs with AR-15s from a helicopter. That probably made the hunters happy. But it probably made the wild hogs unhappy.

The analogy being that Red State laws make the shooters + terrorists happy and the school children unhappy?

[PeterAlan]

Well I've seen video of hunters in Texas shooting wild hogs with AR-15s from a helicopter.

Just what the Framers had in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment.

[Chas_P]

Just what the Framers had in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment.

Dunno about that. But I see nothing wrong with it if the hogs are destroying crops. Do you?

[PeterAlan]

Dunno about that. But I see nothing wrong with it if the hogs are destroying crops. Do you?

I certainly don't think this justifies keeping assault rifles in circulation.

[Chas_P]

The analogy being that Red State laws make the shooters + terrorists happy and the school children unhappy?

Actually the helicopter in that video (N65AL) is registered to a guy in Lanesboro, MN.....hardly a "red" state.

[pilowsky]

Chas_P's war on pigs.

Just say no.

[y66]

Chas_P's war on pigs.

Just say no.

Do I have to turn in my Bacon Card?