Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[MikeK]

A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.

We can certainly start there.

Every step taken in that direction is a step closer to another major black market.

Think back to the mid-sixties when the issue was drugs. Suggestions on "fighting drug abuse" were rampant. And now that the majority of the suggestions, and more, have been implemented, look where we are. Any type of drug one is willing to pay for is avalable within five miles of any inhabited location in the U.S. -- if not right around the corner.

Still we waste billions of dollars each year and have created a massive prison industrial complex doing something which clearly isn't working, has never worked, and there is no reason to believe it ever will work. Which I've heard is the definition of insanity.

 

[Ernie S.]

Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell.

And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.

Then move there, bitch.

Why?

Frankly, I want to fix this country.

The way to do that is to slap down the religous nuts, the gun nuts and the greedy assholes pulling your strings.

You'd be doing a lot to fix this country if you did move there.

 

[Bern80]

Secondly, your dodging. You conveniently did not quote the second part of what I said which pertains to your actual position; guns need to be eliminated entirely and people who own them should be negatively stigmatized to discourage ownership of firearms. Again, your priorities are horribly misplaced. Cars cause far more injuries and deaths to humans than cars. Yet you seem unwilling to put this same negative stigma on car owners. Why is that? The same policies you advocate could be applied to the automobile, hopefully eliminating the ownership of them eventually and thus eliminating the deaths and injuries they are involved in. Where are your priorities? It seems they are only placed on the ones that don't cause you a personal inconvenience.

Cars are designed to transport.
Guns are designed to injure.

Not anywhere close to the same thing.

I realize you don't like that harsh truth because it makes you a hypocrite, but that is reality. Nor is your assertion even accurate. Guns are not designed to injur. They are designed to fire bulletts. Certain kinds of bullets are designed to injure. Some are not. The bow and arrow is also designed to injure, yet there is no regulation on those. That is a mute point however, because ultimately their purpose is determined by the user. Their intent doesn't change the numbers of injuries and deaths they are involved in either. And don't you find that interesting? The object you say is not designed to injure or kill, injures and kills more people in the U.S. than the object you claim is designed to injure and kill. They are both inanimate objects that can't hurt anyone without a person acting on them.

However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.

There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.

As for stigmatizing it; That goes back to the OP. I was asked for a plan and that is the only way to stop mass murders who use firearms; make guns harder to get.

Again bad plain. Very short sighted and very inefficient to think that's the only way to stop mass murders. I would think one solution would be addressing the PEOPLE that commit them rather than the inanimate object they used to carry out their violence. If a crazy person decided to slam their car into a bus full of kids, I gaurantee you would not be focused on the car they drove or more heavily regulating cars. Nor would you insist we start attaching a negative stigma to people that have the audacity to own one. How about something a bit more comparable. Did we go after the the companies who's parts were used in the bomb Timothy McVeigh detonated. Was there even a national discussion about bombs? I don't recall that.

 

[Bern80]

If my car wrecks into your car, I'm required to carry liability insurance that will fix your property.

Shouldn't we do the same thing with weapons--force each one to have liability insurance in case they injure someone?

Afterall, they're the same thing...right?

In the sense that the offending party should take responsibility, yes. Though insurance on firearms is unneccessary since, under the law, one is already going to be punished, in most cases, if they hurt someone with their firearm.

Great; you're in jail. What about the injured party? They have to sue you (since you're in jail you're earning is going to go way down). Liability insurance for guns is paramount it would seem.

Comments?

The law already allows you to do that I believe. Without the object being insured.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?

 

[Immanuel]

NRA Doctrine
- No Gun Registrations
- No Owner Registrations
- No Background checks
- No restrictions on guns or magazines


NRA states: Nothing you propose will stop gun violence

Unfortunately they are probably right.

However, since nothing is going to stop violence, we should be working towards whatever can minimize it to the greatest extent.

I do not know what that might be. I tend to side with those who say that armed citizenry deters armed thugs from running rampantly through our cities, but maybe someone can prove differently. You lefties have some decent examples when you compare the US and the UK. In some respects, one can look at those comparisons and say, "what gives?". On the other hand, I tend to look at the scumbags from history and I realize that they to wanted to disarm their citizens so I have to weigh the two things against each other. Am I more afraid of the criminal with the gun or am I more afraid of what a corrupt government might do if they were not hampered by citizens who could (I am not saying we should revolt or even would be successful if we did) revolt against them?

To be frank, I am a hell of a lot more worried about the criminals on Capital Hill than I am those on the streets.

Immie

 

[kaz]

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?

Are these the only laws? At that point are all the limits on where guns can be taken and concealment and so forth removed? Or are these the starting point of other restrictions?

If they are the only laws and all others are off the books, then my only real objection is the requirement to buy insurance, which I don't believe is Constitutional. But since apparently Roberts can find that one in the Constitution, I'm sure you could get it by the robed dictatorship. You might have to change it to if you don't buy insurance, you pay a penalty so he can call it a "tax."

 

[Bern80]

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?

Nowhere. I know it's tough, but there's kind of two different debates going on here. There's the what level of regulation debate while still allowing people to own guns like you, and there's the those wanting the outright banning and/or elimination of guns altogether like CandyCorn.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?

Are these the only laws? At that point are all the limits on where guns can be taken and concealment and so forth removed? Or are these the starting point of other restrictions?

If they are the only laws and all others are off the books, then my only real objection is the requirement to buy insurance, which I don't believe is Constitutional. But since apparently Roberts can find that one in the Constitution, I'm sure you could get it by the robed dictatorship. You might have to change it to if you don't buy insurance, you pay a penalty so he can call it a "tax."

Those 4 pts. might frame a rational approach to people control, arms control is another matter. The debate on what "arms" include is a long and ponderous one with several schools of thought. Is it sufficient to suggest each state legislature be allowed to define what types of weapons are prohibited therein? Would it then be incumbent on each individual to understand the law in states he or she might travel to or through to avoid jeopardy?

I believe all gun owners ought to carry insurance to cover any eventuality. I carry a one million dollar umbrella policy at a cost of less than $200 per year. Of course I also have a home owners and auto insurance policy.

In response to Bern: I doubt many believe guns should be banned from the landscape. Most gun owners are responsible and most citizens understand that most gun owners are responsible citizens. That being true, IMO, I also believe most citizens, gun owning and not, would not object to licensing, insurance and the proper transfer of weapons.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'd prefer you go fix Japan.

In fact, I bet I could get contributions for your Air Fare from most of the members of the Board if you denounced your American Citizenship and moved there.

You hate America anyway. Just move, bitch.

Again, guy, I love America. Served in the Army and everything.

What I have no use for are inbred, bible thumping, gun toting RETARDS who believe whatever shit the Koch Brothers tell them.

Your ancestors did.

Or were they shipped here in the hold of a cargo ship as criminals in chains in the 17th/18th Century?

Likely.

Or maybe they were fighting other hapless DPs trying to board a ship in some God-Forsaken harbor around the turn of the 20th Century. You know, running from some FUCKED up place in Europe..... The other place you like to compare us to and tell us how inferior we are to them.

Just fucking leave.

Well, here's the thing. The Europeans kept progressing. We started REGRESSING.

We've really become DUMBER as a society. As you are kindly proving today.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?

Are these the only laws? At that point are all the limits on where guns can be taken and concealment and so forth removed? Or are these the starting point of other restrictions?

If they are the only laws and all others are off the books, then my only real objection is the requirement to buy insurance, which I don't believe is Constitutional. But since apparently Roberts can find that one in the Constitution, I'm sure you could get it by the robed dictatorship. You might have to change it to if you don't buy insurance, you pay a penalty so he can call it a "tax."

Those 4 pts. might frame a rational approach to people control, arms control is another matter. The debate on what "arms" include is a long and ponderous one with several schools of thought. Is it sufficient to suggest each state legislature be allowed to define what types of weapons are prohibited therein? Would it then be incumbent on each individual to understand the law in states he or she might travel to or through to avoid jeopardy?

I believe all gun owners ought to carry insurance to cover any eventuality. I carry a one million dollar umbrella policy at a cost of less than $200 per year. Of course I also have a home owners and auto insurance policy.

In response to Bern: I doubt many believe guns should be banned from the landscape. Most gun owners are responsible and most citizens understand that most gun owners are responsible citizens. That being true, IMO, I also believe most citizens, gun owning and not, would not object to licensing, insurance and the proper transfer of weapons.

Most gun owners would most assuredly resist insurance. It is a scam to deny people firearms. All ya gotta do is get the requirement passed then jack the rates up so most can not afford it.

Further not one of those provisions effects illegal guns, does not effect criminals and would not effect the guy that kills someone to gain access to firearms.

 

[JoeB131]

The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone

For gunmakers, the political fight over assault rifles and high-capacity pistols is about more than just profits – it's about the militarization of the marketplace and represents a desperate bid by gunmakers to prop up a decaying business. The once-dependable market for traditional hunting guns has fallen off a cliff. To adapt, the firearms industry has embraced a business strategy that requires it to place the weapons of war favored by deranged killers like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner into the homes and holsters of as many Americans as possible. "They're not selling your dad's hunting rifle or shotgun," says Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a top industry watchdog. "They're selling military-bred weaponry."

As recently as 2008, shotguns, rifles and other traditional hunting weapons made up half of all new civilian gun sales in America, according to SEC documents – a brisk billion-dollar business. Today, hunting guns account for less than a quarter of the market, and the hunting industry is forecasting a 24 percent drop in revenue by 2025. Gunmakers are on the wrong side of the same demographic curves that haunt the modern Republican Party. Its customer base is too old, too white, too male and too Southern. According to Gallup, 61 percent of white males in the South own guns today. Nationwide, just 18 percent of Latinos do. "The white males are aging and dying off," says Sugarmann. Flooding the market with battle-ready guns, he says, "is an effort to find one new, shiny thing to sell them."

Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.

if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens. Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many. Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse. (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.

if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens. Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many. Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse. (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)

You can reform the courts and prisons but not gunpowder. It would be a great start though.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Well if I could convince the left to drop gun control I would.

I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

^ That's the elephant in the room

They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...

Nope. No crickets. It's called Australia and Japan and Germany and Switzerland and Finland and Sweden and the U.K. and every other first world country that has embraced gun control and don't have mass murders.

And they pity the pointy-headed idiots like yourself.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.

if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens. Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many. Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse. (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)

Most people in lock up are there because of victimless crimes like owning pot or meth, genius. Not because they shot somebody.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.

if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens. Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many. Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse. (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.

We can certainly start there.

Every step taken in that direction is a step closer to another major black market.

Think back to the mid-sixties when the issue was drugs. Suggestions on "fighting drug abuse" were rampant. And now that the majority of the suggestions, and more, have been implemented, look where we are. Any type of drug one is willing to pay for is avalable within five miles of any inhabited location in the U.S. -- if not right around the corner.

Still we waste billions of dollars each year and have created a massive prison industrial complex doing something which clearly isn't working, has never worked, and there is no reason to believe it ever will work. Which I've heard is the definition of insanity.

Unfortunately, if our economy gets a lot worse and mass homelessness ensues, they have plenty of private prisons ready for the dispossessed. It would only take a week of widespread disorganization and confusion at work around the country.

 

[candycorn]

However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.

There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

 

[Bern80]

However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.

There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?

 

[kaz]

Well if I could convince the left to drop gun control I would.



^ That's the elephant in the room

They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...

Nope. No crickets. It's called Australia and Japan and Germany and Switzerland and Finland and Sweden and the U.K. and every other first world country that has embraced gun control and don't have mass murders.

And they pity the pointy-headed idiots like yourself.

In other words, you have no freaking idea why gun laws wouldn't work any better than pot laws do.

Liberals have spun, evaded and deflected. But none of you have posited any sort of actual answer to the question. You can't of course, because your position is inane. As I've pointed out, drug smugglers putting drugs on ships, planes, trucks and every other way having no problems getting drugs across the border could and can do the exact same thing with guns. And if gun restrictions take more hold, the price would go up and they'd be more incented to do it.