What Can Gun Control Compromise Look Like?

[houndawg]

But when you actually have a discussion with any of them it invariably steers towards why are guns like AR-15's even available, why does any one person need to have so many guns, and why can other countries ban guns and not us? And to that the answer will always be the 2nd amendment, which will never, never be repealed. That's why if we're going to do anything other than make political hay over mass shootings or just gun violence as a whole, there are things we can constructively do to improve the situation. Unfortunately, most people prefer to play politics rather than solve anything.

Any measure to restrict guns is not going to have the desired impact. It's a feel good.

Trut so pure, that horse left the barn decades ago and the door is flapping in the breeze...

[89Hen]

Most on the left try to pretend that isn't the case.

Careful with your giant paintbrush boys

22% of Liberals own guns...
34% of Western US Liberals own guns

So most.

[GannonFan]

But when you actually have a discussion with any of them it invariably steers towards why are guns like AR-15's even available, why does any one person need to have so many guns, and why can other countries ban guns and not us? And to that the answer will always be the 2nd amendment, which will never, never be repealed. That's why if we're going to do anything other than make political hay over mass shootings or just gun violence as a whole, there are things we can constructively do to improve the situation. Unfortunately, most people prefer to play politics rather than solve anything.

Wrong, the discussion turns to "how come other countries with gun ownership don't experience the massacres we do?"

Why do you think that is?

Because we're a weird country. There's no other way to explain it, we're special, and not always in good ways. We elected Donald Trump after a video leaked with him talking about just walking up to women and grabbing them by their privates - I didn't even know people did that. Italy voted in their Trump in Berlusconi, but they also got rid of him when his antics and womanizing became too much. We repeal the Glass-Steagall restrictions (which virtually no other country has - their banks have always been able to be depositors as well as investors) and in less than a decade our banks run amok without it and we have the Great Recession. How come other countries can go a whole century avoiding financial disaster while not having laws similar to Glass-Steagall and the moment we try to do without here we suffer a collapse? Same with gun ownership - other countries can have tons of guns and somehow don't devolve into tremendous gun violence. Not us, we're special, we get guns and we kill people. It's as American as apple pie.

[GannonFan]

I think you can do it without a registry. Granted, it would have to rely on the gun owner or new owner actively stepping up and doing the background check on their own, and you would never know if it was done unless a crime with that gun happened after the fact (and at that point you can prosecute the seller or buyer for not doing the background check - that would be the deterrent to make people do the checks) so it would never be perfect, but it would lean on the supposed better and law abiding nature of gun owners to police their own and keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Like I said, not perfect, but better than we have now.

So my Dad has a background check run on me when he's ready to pass all our guns to me in a couple years... guns I've been using since I was a kid... guns that are not registered with any entity up to this point

So in order to run this check on me, he has to do it through law enforcement (because hopefully you can see the problem with just having some website where you can run background checks on anybody just by saying you're thinking about selling them a gun)

Dad has to justify why he's checking law enforcement records to see if I can buy a gun, and in order to prove it, he has to give the particulars of the gun to law enforcement, which is a de facto registering of that gun.

Nobody will do this, because see above about gun registries. And there's no way you can pass a SCOTUS-approved way to make the penalty for non-compliance severe enough to deter noncompliance.

It doesn't have to be that way. The particulars of the guns wouldn't have to be spelled out - heck, it could be written that not even the quantity would need to be disclosed, just the collection as a whole would be fine. It's not a de facto registry, then, since there's no accounting for the serial number of the guns nor even the number of guns.

SCOTUS has already ruled that background checks are perfectly legit with regards to the Constitution so there's nothing that's going to stop that. A penalty that is sufficient enough to begin to deter noncompliance would be fine as well under the same logic - how is it Constitutional to have background checks required but then somehow unconstitutional to put penalties in place to help support that law? That's nonsensical.

[Chizzang]

Careful with your giant paintbrush boys

22% of Liberals own guns...
34% of Western US Liberals own guns

Well that dovetails nicely with the percentage of liberals who have common sense, so I won't dispute your numbers.

Oh and I would characterize 78% as most. Maybe 66% too

[Col Hogan]

So my Dad has a background check run on me when he's ready to pass all our guns to me in a couple years... guns I've been using since I was a kid... guns that are not registered with any entity up to this point

So in order to run this check on me, he has to do it through law enforcement (because hopefully you can see the problem with just having some website where you can run background checks on anybody just by saying you're thinking about selling them a gun)

Dad has to justify why he's checking law enforcement records to see if I can buy a gun, and in order to prove it, he has to give the particulars of the gun to law enforcement, which is a de facto registering of that gun.

Nobody will do this, because see above about gun registries. And there's no way you can pass a SCOTUS-approved way to make the penalty for non-compliance severe enough to deter noncompliance.

It doesn't have to be that way. The particulars of the guns wouldn't have to be spelled out - heck, it could be written that not even the quantity would need to be disclosed, just the collection as a whole would be fine. It's not a de facto registry, then, since there's no accounting for the serial number of the guns nor even the number of guns.

SCOTUS has already ruled that background checks are perfectly legit with regards to the Constitution so there's nothing that's going to stop that. A penalty that is sufficient enough to begin to deter noncompliance would be fine as well under the same logic - how is it Constitutional to have background checks required but then somehow unconstitutional to put penalties in place to help support that law? That's nonsensical.

How would mandatory background checks even be enforceable without first mandatory registration? I’ve lived in Texas or Virginia since 1991...neither state requires Gun registration unlike some leftist states like my native Massachusetts...

So, for this discussion, let’s assume I own a gun...and I decide to sell it to person x...without mandatory federal registration, how can I be forced to make person x go through a background check before I transfer ownership??? And how can any governmental agency determine that person x acquired that weapon without a background check since there is not mandatory federal registration???

Your desire is built on false assumptions, unenforceable...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

My reaction has already been covered by Cid:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment or STFU. No further discussion needed.

That's just a dodge for not having an answer. We have rampant gun violence, even if you don't look at the mass shootings. What do we do about it?

Just stop, no matter how much the media tells you there is gun violence its just not true. There are a couple hundred instances each year (outside of Chicago they do that in a weekend)

200 in 310 million is nothing its not even worth worrying about. If you dont like it arm yourself and stop being a victim.

[GannonFan]

It doesn't have to be that way. The particulars of the guns wouldn't have to be spelled out - heck, it could be written that not even the quantity would need to be disclosed, just the collection as a whole would be fine. It's not a de facto registry, then, since there's no accounting for the serial number of the guns nor even the number of guns.

SCOTUS has already ruled that background checks are perfectly legit with regards to the Constitution so there's nothing that's going to stop that. A penalty that is sufficient enough to begin to deter noncompliance would be fine as well under the same logic - how is it Constitutional to have background checks required but then somehow unconstitutional to put penalties in place to help support that law? That's nonsensical.

How would mandatory background checks even be enforceable without first mandatory registration? I’ve lived in Texas or Virginia since 1991...neither state requires Gun registration unlike some leftist states like my native Massachusetts...

So, for this discussion, let’s assume I own a gun...and I decide to sell it to person x...without mandatory federal registration, how can I be forced to make person x go through a background check before I transfer ownership??? And how can any governmental agency determine that person x acquired that weapon without a background check since there is not mandatory federal registration???

Your desire is built on false assumptions, unenforceable...

The record of the background check stays - it's not a registry of who owns what gun, or how many guns they own, but it does create a record saying at a point in time you were a gun owner. But really, the only time there would be a penalty would be when law enforcement becomes aware of a person having a gun who should be banned from having one (again, felon, mental health reason, restraining order, etc). Either they're told the person has a gun or that person uses one. And even then, law enforcement would still need to find out how they got the gun and who gave/sold it to them. Sometimes they won't be able to.

The enforcement of this would certainly be the biggest step - convincing gun owners that background checks are vital to promoting gun safety is an obstacle, that's for sure. It's relying on gun owners themselves to follow a law to bring more responsibility to gun ownership. Some will balk at that, perhaps many will. The mentality of "2nd amendment, stfu" is pretty strong. But if we can save some lives by keeping guns out of the hands of people who truly should not have them (again, felons, mentally ill, etc) then we've done something worthwhile.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

But when you actually have a discussion with any of them it invariably steers towards why are guns like AR-15's even available, why does any one person need to have so many guns, and why can other countries ban guns and not us? And to that the answer will always be the 2nd amendment, which will never, never be repealed. That's why if we're going to do anything other than make political hay over mass shootings or just gun violence as a whole, there are things we can constructively do to improve the situation. Unfortunately, most people prefer to play politics rather than solve anything.

Wrong, the discussion turns to "how come other countries with gun ownership don't experience the massacres we do?"

Why do you think that is?

Its a bullshit lie you bought into thats why that is......
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... -countries

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Wrong, the discussion turns to "how come other countries with gun ownership don't experience the massacres we do?"

Why do you think that is?

Because we're a weird country. There's no other way to explain it, we're special, and not always in good ways. We elected Donald Trump after a video leaked with him talking about just walking up to women and grabbing them by their privates - I didn't even know people did that. Italy voted in their Trump in Berlusconi, but they also got rid of him when his antics and womanizing became too much. We repeal the Glass-Steagall restrictions (which virtually no other country has - their banks have always been able to be depositors as well as investors) and in less than a decade our banks run amok without it and we have the Great Recession. How come other countries can go a whole century avoiding financial disaster while not having laws similar to Glass-Steagall and the moment we try to do without here we suffer a collapse? Same with gun ownership - other countries can have tons of guns and somehow don't devolve into tremendous gun violence. Not us, we're special, we get guns and we kill people. It's as American as apple pie.

We are 31st in the world when it comes to gun violence............oops

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

How would mandatory background checks even be enforceable without first mandatory registration? I’ve lived in Texas or Virginia since 1991...neither state requires Gun registration unlike some leftist states like my native Massachusetts...

So, for this discussion, let’s assume I own a gun...and I decide to sell it to person x...without mandatory federal registration, how can I be forced to make person x go through a background check before I transfer ownership??? And how can any governmental agency determine that person x acquired that weapon without a background check since there is not mandatory federal registration???

Your desire is built on false assumptions, unenforceable...

The record of the background check stays - it's not a registry of who owns what gun, or how many guns they own, but it does create a record saying at a point in time you were a gun owner. But really, the only time there would be a penalty would be when law enforcement becomes aware of a person having a gun who should be banned from having one (again, felon, mental health reason, restraining order, etc). Either they're told the person has a gun or that person uses one. And even then, law enforcement would still need to find out how they got the gun and who gave/sold it to them. Sometimes they won't be able to.

The enforcement of this would certainly be the biggest step - convincing gun owners that background checks are vital to promoting gun safety is an obstacle, that's for sure. It's relying on gun owners themselves to follow a law to bring more responsibility to gun ownership. Some will balk at that, perhaps many will. The mentality of "2nd amendment, stfu" is pretty strong. But if we can save some lives by keeping guns out of the hands of people who truly should not have them (again, felons, mentally ill, etc) then we've done something worthwhile.

You guys need to go after the less than 500 people each year that kill people and use a tool to do it. Its got to be easier to go after 500ish people than 180 million responsible gun owners.

[93henfan]

That's just a dodge for not having an answer. We have rampant gun violence, even if you don't look at the mass shootings. What do we do about it?

Ooh, ooh, I have an idea. Why don’t we enforce (or strengthen) existing laws and sentencing.

Take a look at the Ball thug and the other two UCLA players who shoplifted sunglasses in China. They were looking at 3-10 years in prison until Trump waved his hand and had Xi release them.

I bet China doesn’t have a shoplifting problem. What laws do Chinese break? US laws (espionage, pirating), because they know we’re pussies as far as criminal justice goes.

[Chizzang]

That's just a dodge for not having an answer. We have rampant gun violence, even if you don't look at the mass shootings. What do we do about it?

Ooh, ooh, I have an idea. Why don’t we enforce (or strengthen) existing laws and sentencing.

Take a look at the Ball thug and the other two UCLA players who shoplifted sunglasses in China. They were looking at 3-10 years in prison until Trump waved his hand and had Xi release them.

I bet China doesn’t have a shoplifting problem. What laws do Chinese break? US laws (espionage, pirating), because they know we’re pussies as far as criminal justice goes.

I sure wish they would have kept Ball and sent him to prison...
I would have enjoyed that

[GannonFan]

That's just a dodge for not having an answer. We have rampant gun violence, even if you don't look at the mass shootings. What do we do about it?

Just stop, no matter how much the media tells you there is gun violence its just not true. There are a couple hundred instances each year (outside of Chicago they do that in a weekend)

200 in 310 million is nothing its not even worth worrying about. If you dont like it arm yourself and stop being a victim.

Sure, compared to heart disease or accidental deaths (non-homicide) or other ways of dying, gun violence isn't as high in the general population. But it's well in the top 10 for adolescent deaths (age 10-24), and it's still, not counting suicides, accountable for upwards of 15k per year (total homicides, not all are gun related). I'm not sure where your 200 in 310 million is referring to - surely there are more than 200 people killed per year by a gun in a homicide.

[Col Hogan]

Just stop, no matter how much the media tells you there is gun violence its just not true. There are a couple hundred instances each year (outside of Chicago they do that in a weekend)

200 in 310 million is nothing its not even worth worrying about. If you dont like it arm yourself and stop being a victim.

Sure, compared to heart disease or accidental deaths (non-homicide) or other ways of dying, gun violence isn't as high in the general population. But it's well in the top 10 for adolescent deaths (age 10-24), and it's still, not counting suicides, accountable for upwards of 15k per year (total homicides, not all are gun related). I'm not sure where your 200 in 310 million is referring to - surely there are more than 200 people killed per year by a gun in a homicide.

Medical malpractice kills 3 times (or more, I’ve got the figure somewhere) people than guns, including suicides...

I don’t see any million mom marches against Doctor violence or incompetence...

Just a thought if you really want to save lives...

[89Hen]

Close to 4000 people a year drown in the US.

[GannonFan]

Sure, compared to heart disease or accidental deaths (non-homicide) or other ways of dying, gun violence isn't as high in the general population. But it's well in the top 10 for adolescent deaths (age 10-24), and it's still, not counting suicides, accountable for upwards of 15k per year (total homicides, not all are gun related). I'm not sure where your 200 in 310 million is referring to - surely there are more than 200 people killed per year by a gun in a homicide.

Medical malpractice kills 3 times (or more, I’ve got the figure somewhere) people than guns, including suicides...

I don’t see any million mom marches against Doctor violence or incompetence...

Just a thought if you really want to save lives...

Probably because there are numerous laws and regulation that center around medical malpractice, including licensing, registration, and other means of documenting who is a doctor, what they're trained in, where they work, etc. We tend to deal with medical malpractice and punish it when it happens. There's no need to march for something to be done as plenty is and has been done.

[GannonFan]

Close to 4000 people a year drown in the US.

How many people do they take with them when they drown? How many drownings are caused by other people?

[93henfan]

Close to 4000 people a year drown in the US.

How many people do they take with them when they drown? How many drownings are caused by other people?

And what about people like Phil Collins who would not lend a hand?

[89Hen]

Close to 4000 people a year drown in the US.

How many people do they take with them when they drown? How many drownings are caused by other people?

2301 and 3999 respectively.

[89Hen]

How many people do they take with them when they drown? How many drownings are caused by other people?

And what about people like Phil Collins who would not lend a hand?

[GannonFan]

How many people do they take with them when they drown? How many drownings are caused by other people?

2301 and 3999 respectively.

At least 6.93 would've been a creative answer.

[GannonFan]

How many people do they take with them when they drown? How many drownings are caused by other people?

And what about people like Phil Collins who would not lend a hand?

Phil says that's just an urban legend, he never let anyone drown. He was just angry.

[Col Hogan]

Medical malpractice kills 3 times (or more, I’ve got the figure somewhere) people than guns, including suicides...

I don’t see any million mom marches against Doctor violence or incompetence...

Just a thought if you really want to save lives...

Probably because there are numerous laws and regulation that center around medical malpractice, including licensing, registration, and other means of documenting who is a doctor, what they're trained in, where they work, etc. We tend to deal with medical malpractice and punish it when it happens. There's no need to march for something to be done as plenty is and has been done.

Fact: According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), medical negligence is the third leading cause of death in the U.S.—right behind heart disease and cancer.

In 2012, over $3 billion was spent in medical malpractice payouts, averaging one payout every 43 minutes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/ ... e7e07d416b
If medical malpractice is being dealt with, why is it the third leading cause of death...not lead poisoning???

If someone commits a crime with a gun causing death, are you saying it isn’t punished???

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Close to 4000 people a year drown in the US.

How many people do they take with them when they drown? How many drownings are caused by other people?

Quit deflecting, and save those 4000 people! Every life matters!

We need drowning control laws

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk