A Modest Proposal to Reduce Gun Violence

[_ldsfaqs]

Actually, straw buyers are one of the most common ways for those who can't pass a background check to circumvent the law and get a gun.

See this Frontline article, for example. Your idea that gun thefts are the most common way criminals get guns is a common but mistaken belief.

Sorry, I take my facts from the "bigger" facts and information, not liberal PBS.

Analytics' proposal is interesting. I'd add in requiring gun insurance and gun safety training similar to Utah's hunter's safety requirements. Both are about responsible gun ownership and with insurance, we would be letting markets weigh in on the risk involved with a particular gun type or user.

Analytics method is too fascist, because how are you going to determine entirely whether someone gave their gun illegitimately? Often when people have guns stolen they don't always know about it immediately, or other potential situations.

Clearly, Analytics is not attacking the TOOL. His proposal is aimed at owners and asking for a higher level of responsibility.

A higher level of responsibility is one thing, but not that way.
For example, cop's already check with the Firearms dealers who sold the gun for the information they can get when a gun is used in a crime. Why have a central "registration" that government and fascists can then pro-actively use against us? Analytics idea is partially dumb. Although, in the right department I'm not against providing some way or tracking and proving and making gun owners more responsible. Although, frankly it's already done, so still the idea is dumb. Anyone that can actually be PROVEN to have given/sold a gun to a known criminal etc. is usually gone after.

"Proof" is where his idea fails.

[_ldsfaqs]

Analytics.... Hate to break it to you, but law abiding citizens who pass background checks are not going around selling guns to the criminal underground.

You don't live in Utah, do you?

I bought my one and only gun from some guy on KSL.com.

We met in a parking lot in Provo and I bought a gun off him there with cash and no questions asked.

It was perfectly legal as far as I know and as far as he knew I might have been a deranged violent felon.

You don't see a problem with that?

I've sold an bought a few guns that way, but in Nevada.
Of course not..... because your statement is a strawman.
Most gun owners who "sale" their guns to others are fairly SAVVY people when it comes to human behavior. They don't just sale their guns to anyone.

Off book purchases have little to nil effect on the actual "gun violence" problem. It's only an "assumption" in the liberal mind, not based in actual facts, because the actual facts tell where the various areas the problem actually comes from.
99.99999% private sale purchases if not more are done between responsible citizens.
A gun is "private property".... What a person does with their private property is no ones business. There are important reasons the laws were set up this way in the first place.

[_ldsfaqs]

More importantly, the real cause of the gun crime problem is not guns, it's liberals.
Because liberals have made "punishment" "vacations", not something to never want to go and experience. Nearly ALL gun crime is committed by repeat offenders, men who already have long records. There are no "consequences" anymore for committing a crime, especially in big cities where it's the worst.

Please give me an example of another country that has solved the problem of gun violence with stricter sentencing and tougher jail conditions.

Misuse of facts..... End result does not equal causation.

The reason the U.S. is the highest jailer is entirely because it jails people and then lets them go without ANY sort of "punishment" value, so they go right back and commit crimes, over and over again, and bigger and bigger and more often. This is entirely because of liberals.

If people actually got SERIOUS punishment for crimes, they would be much less likely to do them first, and then they would be much less likely to repeat, and go onto bigger crimes such as gun violence. For example, the vast majority of first time gun violence commiters (let alone multiple time ones) have been already LONG TIME criminals. Short sentencing should only occur with truly penitent individuals who simply make a mistake, not people who are the scum of the earth. Scum of the earth only learn and repent when they have to suffer for their sins.... That's why you don't see most of them repenting until after 30 years of criminal activities being over 40 years old.

Anyway, if you guys want to argue I'm stupid about religion, even though it's been one of my passions my whole life, you can't argue with me when it comes to criminal behavior, guns etc. I spent my whole life preparing for a career in Law Enforcement until circumstances and life changes. I know what creates gun violence, and it's not the free exercise in whatever form of being able to get a gun.

[_ldsfaqs]

Let's say that in the United States, there are x-million guns in the United States owned by people who should not own them because they are criminals or mentaly unstable. You are telling me that the way nearly all of these guns were transfered from law-abiding citizens to the criminal underground is because they were stolen. For the sake of argument, let's say that's true.

Not necessarily nearly all, because you first mix two different things, criminals and the mentally disturbed thus creating a strawman with two different things that have completely different history's and details. Second, cops don't necessarily "search" all a person owns to find their guns or other weapons, they simply tell you you're not allowed to have one if you're a certainly type of criminal. They don't have the man-power to be total fascists, Nazi Gastapo's searching every house, or group of people you associate with. And that's a third factor. The fact that human beings are not usually "separated" from family, friends etc. In other words, if they really want, they can get (not usually given by the way) a gun in all kinds of ways.

What does this imply? It implies that gun owners are doing a spectacularly awful job of preventing their weapons from being stolen. If a law-abiding citizen is going to own a "tool" which is especially useful to acomplish the jobs of robbery, mahem, and murder, don't they have a responsibility to ensure that their tools don't fall into the wrong hands?

Why do you think law-abiding gun owners are doing such an awful job of preventing their weapons from being stolen by criminals?

So, law abiding citizens shouldn't own a gun unless they have a $10,000+ gun safe that is extremely difficult to break into and can't be carried, and/or have a $500 a year whatever alarm system (plus install costs etc.) etc., plus gun safes etc.?

As I said above, I'm not necessarily against "some" of your proposal, just it's liberal/fascist aspects. Law enforcement already "looks" to see who owns a gun, and they "already" prosecute people if it can be proven someone illegally gave a gun to a criminal. Your idea is essentially "utopian", assuming a fascist free society and individuals (thus no sin or Hitler type evil ever arising), and it ignores the realities of how this "responsibility" is enforced without causing HUGE injustices to the innocent.

Already in Britain they lock people up because you legitimately defended yourself from a violent criminal, who was known to be, had already been, and even robbed your house already, but just because you defended yourself with an "illegal gun", you go to jail instead.

Is that the kind of "justice" you want in America? Your wanted liberal utopia?

If you want to stop so-called "good" people from giving guns to 'bad' people, then re-inforce the tools police already use, and PUNISH the guilty. They already know who "bought" a gun used in violent crime, thus your "registration" is simply a fascist step in the wrong direction.

[_MeDotOrg]

Please give me an example of another country that has solved the problem of gun violence with stricter sentencing and tougher jail conditions.

Misuse of facts..... End result does not equal causation.

The reason the U.S. is the highest jailer is entirely because it jails people and then lets them go without ANY sort of "punishment" value, so they go right back and commit crimes, over and over again, and bigger and bigger and more often. This is entirely because of liberals.

If people actually got SERIOUS punishment for crimes, they would be much less likely to do them first, and then they would be much less likely to repeat, and go onto bigger crimes such as gun violence. For example, the vast majority of first time gun violence commiters (let alone multiple time ones) have been already LONG TIME criminals. Short sentencing should only occur with truly penitent individuals who simply make a mistake, not people who are the scum of the earth. Scum of the earth only learn and repent when they have to suffer for their sins.... That's why you don't see most of them repenting until after 30 years of criminal activities being over 40 years old.

Anyway, if you guys want to argue I'm stupid about religion, even though it's been one of my passions my whole life, you can't argue with me when it comes to criminal behavior, guns etc. I spent my whole life preparing for a career in Law Enforcement until circumstances and life changes. I know what creates gun violence, and it's not the free exercise in whatever form of being able to get a gun.

Two questions:

Specifically, which countries have penal systems that you admire which do not have the rates of recidivism of U.S. prisoners? Perhaps Norway?

2. Specifically, how do we get "SERIOUS" about punishments? What punishments should we be administering?

[_Analytics]

A Modest Proposal to Reduce Gun Violence

No need. Just enforce existing law. You're proposal isn't going to stop crimes of passion or other criminals from obtaining a gun and not being traced to it if they want to. The solution is to change the culture.

No single idea will solve the problem 100%. My real point here is that people have these fetishes for these particular "tools" which are not only extraordinarily dangerous to themselves, but also extraordinarily dangerous to the rest of us. If somebody's level of maturity isn't high enough to guarantee that they won't have a fit and shoot somebody, then they aren't mature enough to have access to a gun.

If I owned a gun, it would be my responsible to be 100% sure that my tool of death didn't fall into the hands of anybody who is untrained, immature, subject to fits of passion, or insane. If I failed to do so, I should be held responsible for the death and mayhem that was carried out with my tools.

Ldsfaqs essentially claims that 9,999 out of 10,000 times, gun owners are such awesome people that when they enter into private gun sales, they infallibly use the Holy Ghost to perform an effective background check on the other person, and would walk away from the deal if the person was anybody other than a superlatively responsible, God-fearing Republican. But if that were true, then it would be extraordinarily difficult for criminals and the irresponsible to get their hands on guns. But the amount of gun violence in America proves that isn’t the case.

All I'm calling for is an acknowledgement of the fact that guns are extraordinarily dangerous, and that gun owners need to be held to a level of accountability and responsibility commensurate with this dangerousness.

[_subgenius]

[*]Every gun in the United States must have a serial number and be registered with the state or federal government.

why?

[*]It would be a crime to possess an unregistered weapon. The punishment if caught would be confiscation of the weapon and a fine.

why?

[*]You may not sell or give a gun to somebody without them first passing a background check, and then transferring the registration to them.

background check is mighty ambiguous here? exactly how expansive do you "envision" a person's papers need be?

[*]If a gun registered to you is used to commit a felony, you are an accomplice to the crime. For example, if somebody used a gun registered to you to rob a convenience store, you’d be equally guilty of robbing the store as the guy who held it.

because personal accountability is not valued anymore? what about their parents? should they not share some liability? and what about the school system? how about the guy that manufactured the bullets, him and his family which supported him working that job should also be punished....and the guy that owned the car he stole to getaway should also be charged.

Note that these laws are all about responsibility. If you are a gun trafficker at gun shows, you would be required to do the responsible thing of verifying that you aren’t arming criminals. Gun owners would be held responsible for what their “tools” are used for.

and the guy that sold Lizzie Borden that ax should go to jail.

In words that ldsfaqs might understand, I’m not that concerned about rednecks in Tennessee who buy guns to shoot at beer bottles. In contrast, I’m more worried about people in Tennessee who sell guns to Memphis gang members. If the GORE act was in place, unregistered guns would quickly become an increasingly rare and valued commodity that kids in gangs would have a harder and harder time acquiring. Law-abiding citizens with registered guns would be very careful to ensure that their weapons don’t make it into the hands of criminals. These things would make it much harder for criminals to acquire guns, which in turn would reduce gun crime.

So, you agree that Obama providing weapons to Mexican drug gangs is an offense that Obama should be persecuted for.....thanks!

[_Analytics]

[*]Every gun in the United States must have a serial number and be registered with the state or federal government.

why?

To facilitate gunowners being responsible and accountable for what is done with their "tools".

[*]It would be a crime to possess an unregistered weapon. The punishment if caught would be confiscation of the weapon and a fine.

why?

To facilitate gunowners being responsible and accountable for what is done with their "tools".

[*]If a gun registered to you is used to commit a felony, you are an accomplice to the crime. For example, if somebody used a gun registered to you to rob a convenience store, you’d be equally guilty of robbing the store as the guy who held it.

because personal accountability is not valued anymore?

No, precicely because it is. If you choose to own a weapon, it is your personal responsibility to make sure that your weapon isn't used illegally or irresponsibly. Why are you against gunowners being held accountable for putting guns into hands of people who shouldn't hold them?

[_cinepro]

Here's where I think your ideas would have problems with implementation:

Gun Owners Responsibility Enforcement (GORE) Act

1. Every gun in the United States must have a serial number and be registered with the state or federal government.
   

If I want to avoid this, wouldn't I just need to steal a gun and file off the serial number? Once this happens, the gun becomes "lost" to the system.

It would be a crime to possess an unregistered weapon. The punishment if caught would be confiscation of the weapon and a fine.

How would this be policed? How would we avoid setting up a black-market for unserialized guns similar to the current black market for drugs?

You may not sell or give a gun to somebody without them first passing a background check, and then transferring the registration to them.

Unless I do. This would regulate honest dealers (much like we have honest pharmacies where we can buy drugs with prescriptions), but that doesn't prevent an illegal trade from developing.

If a gun registered to you is used to commit a felony, you are an accomplice to the crime. For example, if somebody used a gun registered to you to rob a convenience store, you’d be equally guilty of robbing the store as the guy who held it.

This would motivate gun dealers to more tightly control their dealings, but I suspect there would be a correlated increase in the trafficking of unregistered guns (or stolen guns).

I'm also not sure how that responsibility would compare to situations such as someone committing a crime with someone's car. If my car is stolen, sold or even lent to someone who then uses it to rob a bank, would I be held liable under this new "responsibility law"? If not, why not?

[_subgenius]

...(snip)..
To facilitate gunowners being responsible and accountable for what is done with their "tools".
...

No, precicely because it is. If you choose to own a weapon, it is your personal responsibility to make sure that your weapon isn't used illegally or irresponsibly. Why are you against gunowners being held accountable for putting guns into hands of people who shouldn't hold them?

you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
currently people are accountable for illegal gun trafficking.

how about a response to how "accountable" you consider Obama on the Gunwalker program?
I notice you conveniently avoided that in your last post.