CDZ Posting Solutions for Gun Violence

[2aguy]

Anyone using a gun to commit a crime gets shot in the head.

I think you would find gun crime would go way down.

Easy Peasy

Without the "shot in the head" part, I think gun crimes (whether you fire it or not) should carry mandatory minimums of at least 10 years in prison...no parole.

Good post.

This is what 2nd Amendment supporters have been saying for years....gun crime in the U.S. is not caused by law abiding people who own and carry guns. The 11,004 gun murders in 2016 were not done by law abiding gun owners who got mad at a traffic fender bender or over burned dinner. They were committed by career criminals who murdered other career criminals or other innocents, and most of the time they should have been in jail at the time of the attack, but were out in less than 3 years even on repeat gun offenses.....

Long prison sentences are the way Japan stopped their career criminals from using guns......and yet at every step, democrats keep lowering sentences for even the most violent criminals......

Our problem isn't guns...our problem has always been a criminal justice system that keeps allowing repeat violent killers out of jail over and over again....

In Chicago...we have repeat gun offenders who are given bail, who receive diversion into boot camps in place of jail time, and who are out of jail on repeat gun offenses in less than 3 years....who go on to kill......

It is good to see you are finally waking up to the actual solution.....

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to toy pistols



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

 

[2aguy]

So, now can we talk about the real problem that kills far more young people than school shootings ever will

Our society allowing these kids to be recruited into life’s that will result in broken futures and death?

That is the single greatest gun related problem that faces this nation.

It’s not guns though, it’s gangs.

See....if you focus on the real problem....the single teenage girls who are raising the next generations of gang members, then you lose the argument for banning guns and getting rid of the 2nd Amendment....

 

[Flash]

[QU


You leave out the data that the highest body counts for mass shootings per shooting goes to the
AR-15. And that has become the weapon of choice in the last few years. Yes, you can go back and include 1992 through 1998 when the AR was regulated and was not to be had in such numbers. That messes up the totals. Or you can go from 1999 forward and get quite a cultural shock. Hand picking data is just plain lying.

That is like saying the highest body count for terrorism goes to airplanes.

The number of people killed in a year with ARs is minuscule compared with the deaths in the big cities from handguns, mostly stolen or cheap.

You are confused about ARs being "regulated" between '92-'98. You could still go to any gun store in the US and buy an AR. The only difference is that if it wasn't a "preban" then it didn't have a bayonet lug or collapsible stock. Everything else was exactly the same. AR ownership soared during that time. By the way, the gun violence decreased after that silly ban was lifted. Slick Willy's AWB had no effect on gun violence at all. Gun crime was on the decline during the ban and continued after the ban.

The hard truth for Liberals is that White people that don't commit many crimes are the ones that own ARs and other expensive firearms. The crime that is committed with firearms are mostly among the Black and Brown drug and gang population with cheap handguns.

If you want to rob a 7-11 and shoot the clerk why go and buy a $900 AR that is not easily concealed when a cheap handgun will do the job?

 

[2aguy]

[QU


You leave out the data that the highest body counts for mass shootings per shooting goes to the
AR-15. And that has become the weapon of choice in the last few years. Yes, you can go back and include 1992 through 1998 when the AR was regulated and was not to be had in such numbers. That messes up the totals. Or you can go from 1999 forward and get quite a cultural shock. Hand picking data is just plain lying.

That is like saying the highest body count for terrorism goes to airplanes.

The number of people killed in a year with ARs is minuscule compared with the deaths in the big cities from handguns, mostly stolen or cheap.

You are confused about ARs being "regulated" between '92-'98. You could still go to any gun store in the US and buy an AR. The only difference is that if it wasn't a "preban" then it didn't have a bayonet lug or collapsible stock. Everything else was exactly the same. AR ownership soared during that time. By the way, the gun violence decreased after that silly ban was lifted. Slick Willy's AWB had no effect on gun violence at all. Gun crime was on the decline during the ban and continued after the ban.

The hard truth for Liberals is that White people that don't commit many crimes are the ones that own ARs and other expensive firearms. The crime that is committed with firearms are mostly among the Black and Brown drug and gang population with cheap handguns.

If you want to rob a 7-11 and shoot the clerk why go and buy a $900 AR that is not easily concealed when a cheap handgun will do the job?

Yes......and the worst school shooting was Virginia Tech....32 killed with 2 hand guns.....daryl doesn't do much research. The only reason Vegas was so bad was he was firing long distance from a concealed and fortified position into a crowd of over 22,000 people......and he could have killed just as many with a bolt action rifle since he had 23 rifles with him in that hotel room......and throwing a bigger round out, he could have killed even more people with one of those rifles.....

 

[Flash]

[QU


Yes......and the worst school shooting was Virginia Tech....32 killed with 2 hand guns.....daryl doesn't do much research. The only reason Vegas was so bad was he was firing long distance from a concealed and fortified position into a crowd of over 22,000 people......and he could have killed just as many with a bolt action rifle since he had 23 rifles with him in that hotel room......and throwing a bigger round out, he could have killed even more people with one of those rifles.....

As horrific as the Vegas shooting was we should be glad that the idiot decided to use bump stocks. That caused his rifles to jam up and that limited the number of casualties.

The guy was rich and could have bought legal Class III machines guns or Black Market guns and would have inflicted a lot more casualties.

Or he could have got a truck load of fertilizer and blew it up as the crowd was getting out of the concert.

It was his elevated firing position into a large crowd that enabled him to inflict so many casualties.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can't find a solution until first you define a problem to solve.

Saying you are seeking a solution to "Gun Violence" implies that all death from firearms are the same, and it really is not that simple.

It is over simplification to throw all deaths, when a gun is used into a single box, which is what I believe you want because it creates panic and paranoia. But putting that aside, lets look at the main categories of death via firearm to see what can be, or can't be accomplished in each.

1. SUICIDE: 2/3rds of all death by firearms are by suicide. A gun is not a requirement for those seeking to kill themselves. Other methods are available that many times even kill other innocents when implemented. Even Countries like Japan, South Korea and France, with strict gun control laws have suicide rates nearly as high or higher than the United States. Suicide is indeed illegal here, but a legal deterrent is not a remedy to someone who wants to kill themselves.

So how do you stop suicide?

2. GANG RELATED KILLING: The second leading cause of death that involves a firearm is gang related killings. These account for 80% of the remaining deaths. I fail to see how we can deter these by passage of a law, when the legal deterrent against murder is already life in prison to the use of the Death Penalty. Gun locks and secure safes? I don't think a gang member really cares if the law mandates these as they break laws as a way of life. Better training? Do we really want Gang members better trained?

3. DOMESTIC MURDER OR SELF DEFENSE DURING DOMESTIC ALTERCATION: These account for a relatively small number as compared to the first two categories. Again, the criminal penalty for murder is life in prison or the application of the death penalty. What possible additional legal deterrent are we to place on the abuser that is greater than these?

And in many of these killings the gun is not required to kill the weaker victim. These killings happen even in heavily gun controlled areas in the world by the use of other tools such as knife, blunt objects, poison and dozens and dozens of other method.

In this category is also those that killed in self defense, or the defense of another household member. The use of the gun by the victim of the abuse in many cases are completely justifiable, and not having the firearm would have increased the chances of the victims death.

4. THE USE OF A FIREARM BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: Typically done in defense of self or others.

5. ACCIDENTAL DEATH: Extremely rare, it averages roughly 1.5 times per day in a country of 327,000,000 people.

6. MASS SHOOTINGS: Of all the categories, this one involves the fewest deaths per year, but is the most sensational.

If I failed to include a category go ahead and make me aware of it, but I fail to see how these 6 categories can be lumped into a single box if we really want to problem solve.

/----/ All excellent points but the Gun Grabbers will ignore you and will keep banging the drum to repeal and confiscate.
View attachment 196163

True, they are more interested in creating paranoia and panic, thus votes, than to decrease the death toll. As has been demonstrated, confiscation, at best reduces the over all death count by only a few.

So I continue to ask, what is the problem we are looking to solve?

During the AR ban, the AR crime rate was drastically reduced. Right after it was allowed to run out, the school shootings came on with a "Bang" and the AR was the weapon of choice. You can't dispute that.

I don't want to ban the AR. I want to regulate them to the next level. Whether they are or are not "The Problem" the public percieves them as such. By moving them to FFL status, you still get to keep your AR but you will be required to get a FFL license. From what you say, you are already in compliance with the requirements so what's stopping you from obtaining the FFL license if it's required for you to have your ARs. The fact remains, not one single gun crime has been done by a person possessing a FFL license since the beginning of time of the FFL licensing history. Now, that's a selling point you can shout to the world and the world will believe you. But it's not always about what's real. It's oftentimes, about what is perceived. And this would be within the 2nd amendment. it's already been contested many times.

AR style rifles are used very rarely.

What do we solve with this?

If we can’t even define a public safety issue, one that requires new law, then what do we gain?

An AR can be used in criminal activity, sure, but as we saw in the Indiana shooting and in Texas, they can be simply substituted

It's the weapon of choice for Mass Shootings. Much like the Thompson was in it's day. It matters little that it's a semi auto or not. It's the cheapest, best and fastest in operation semi auto that has ever been made. When you compare it to the Mini-14, the Mini-14 is heavy, sluggish and hard to handle when you have to reload. You can go through 3 mags on the AR in the time it takes you to empty the Mini-14, change mags, hit the recharging lever and go. The Record goes to the AR hands down in body counts. It doesn't take 3 shooters for a high body count. It only takes one. A M-16-A-4 wouldn't do any better for exactly the same reasons. As long as it's the weapon of choice, it can be deemed a Public Safety Issue and can be Regulated. The only question is how to regulate it. I like my idea of making it FFL. That falls well within the 2nd amendment guidelines.

So what?

Ban it and then some other semiautomatic will be used.

The only way to prevent school shootings is to prevent people with guns from entering a school

There is no gun ban or gun law that will stop a person hell bent on murder

Now if you really want to talk about gun violence why do you focus so much on mass shootings? Mass shootings account for 1% of all murders where 70% of all murders are committed in very small very distinct urban areas that are well known.

Tell me why don't you ever talk about that?

 

[Flash]

O


Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales,

Let me tell you what are wrong with background checks.

1. They don't work. That will never stop anybody form getting a gun to be used in a crime. Several of the most recent high profile shootings were from people that passed the NICS screening. Most of the gun crime in this country is by thugs that have illegal firearms and background checks will not stop that.

2. Background checks are a presumption of being guilty and having to prove that you are innocent. Very much against American values.

3. It is getting permission from the government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. One that specifically says shall not be infringed. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the authority of the government. If we have to get permission from the government then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. .

That stupid NFA law is nothing more than an extended background check and taxation and is wrong for the same reasons as I articulated above.

Are you suggesting that I should have to pay a $200 tax to have a standard AR magazine? A magazine that I have never and will never use in a crime?

You do know that the Supreme Court says that you don't have to pay a tax for rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, don't you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am looking for solutions to gun violence. All sides. All sides need to be heard equally. Insulting a person is NOT a solution but part of the problem. IF you are going to post angry, do it somewhere else. If you are going to just troll, do it somewhere else. Post solutions as you see it and then let's discuss it.

Care to take that challenge?

You can't find a solution until first you define a problem to solve.

Saying you are seeking a solution to "Gun Violence" implies that all death from firearms are the same, and it really is not that simple.

It is over simplification to throw all deaths, when a gun is used into a single box, which is what I believe you want because it creates panic and paranoia. But putting that aside, lets look at the main categories of death via firearm to see what can be, or can't be accomplished in each.

1. SUICIDE: 2/3rds of all death by firearms are by suicide. A gun is not a requirement for those seeking to kill themselves. Other methods are available that many times even kill other innocents when implemented. Even Countries like Japan, South Korea and France, with strict gun control laws have suicide rates nearly as high or higher than the United States. Suicide is indeed illegal here, but a legal deterrent is not a remedy to someone who wants to kill themselves.

So how do you stop suicide?

2. GANG RELATED KILLING: The second leading cause of death that involves a firearm is gang related killings. These account for 80% of the remaining deaths. I fail to see how we can deter these by passage of a law, when the legal deterrent against murder is already life in prison to the use of the Death Penalty. Gun locks and secure safes? I don't think a gang member really cares if the law mandates these as they break laws as a way of life. Better training? Do we really want Gang members better trained?

3. DOMESTIC MURDER OR SELF DEFENSE DURING DOMESTIC ALTERCATION: These account for a relatively small number as compared to the first two categories. Again, the criminal penalty for murder is life in prison or the application of the death penalty. What possible additional legal deterrent are we to place on the abuser that is greater than these?

And in many of these killings the gun is not required to kill the weaker victim. These killings happen even in heavily gun controlled areas in the world by the use of other tools such as knife, blunt objects, poison and dozens and dozens of other method.

In this category is also those that killed in self defense, or the defense of another household member. The use of the gun by the victim of the abuse in many cases are completely justifiable, and not having the firearm would have increased the chances of the victims death.

4. THE USE OF A FIREARM BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: Typically done in defense of self or others.

5. ACCIDENTAL DEATH: Extremely rare, it averages roughly 1.5 times per day in a country of 327,000,000 people.

6. MASS SHOOTINGS: Of all the categories, this one involves the fewest deaths per year, but is the most sensational.

If I failed to include a category go ahead and make me aware of it, but I fail to see how these 6 categories can be lumped into a single box if we really want to problem solve.

/----/ All excellent points but the Gun Grabbers will ignore you and will keep banging the drum to repeal and confiscate.
View attachment 196163

True, they are more interested in creating paranoia and panic, thus votes, than to decrease the death toll. As has been demonstrated, confiscation, at best reduces the over all death count by only a few.

So I continue to ask, what is the problem we are looking to solve?

During the AR ban, the AR crime rate was drastically reduced. Right after it was allowed to run out, the school shootings came on with a "Bang" and the AR was the weapon of choice. You can't dispute that.

I don't want to ban the AR. I want to regulate them to the next level. Whether they are or are not "The Problem" the public percieves them as such. By moving them to FFL status, you still get to keep your AR but you will be required to get a FFL license. From what you say, you are already in compliance with the requirements so what's stopping you from obtaining the FFL license if it's required for you to have your ARs. The fact remains, not one single gun crime has been done by a person possessing a FFL license since the beginning of time of the FFL licensing history. Now, that's a selling point you can shout to the world and the world will believe you. But it's not always about what's real. It's oftentimes, about what is perceived. And this would be within the 2nd amendment. it's already been contested many times.

An idea worthy of exploring.

But rather than just ARs, instead afford citizens an FFL for any firearm, much like the FFL 03, except not limited to firearms over 50 years old or guns designated as C and R.

Advantages:

No more 4473s to fill out, no waiting periods, no background checks – go to your LGS, buy your gun, take it home.

And with an FFL, a citizen can buy a gun online and have it delivered to his home, no need to ship it to an FFL 01 for a transfer (and the transfer fee).

Last, the FFL would also serve as a concealed carry license valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, superseding all state and local concealed carry laws.

The background check would be conducted as part of the application process, the license would be valid for three years, with a $30 renewal fee.

Disadvantages:

No FFL, no guns – even if one is not otherwise a prohibited person

License holders must maintain a bound book and record all firearm transactions.

License holders must keep meticulous, comprehensive records.

Bound books and a transaction records would be subject to ATF review.

One cannot get an FFL for solely personal gun purchases

Thinking About Getting Your Own FFL? - The Truth About Guns

Before going any further, it’s important to point out some of the stipulations the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (also known as ATF) puts on federal firearms licenses. First, you must plan to do transfers for others. It can’t be 100% all personal use. This means you can’t get a FFL simply to buy a whole bunch of guns for yourself.

 

[2aguy]

/----/ All excellent points but the Gun Grabbers will ignore you and will keep banging the drum to repeal and confiscate.
View attachment 196163

True, they are more interested in creating paranoia and panic, thus votes, than to decrease the death toll. As has been demonstrated, confiscation, at best reduces the over all death count by only a few.

So I continue to ask, what is the problem we are looking to solve?

During the AR ban, the AR crime rate was drastically reduced. Right after it was allowed to run out, the school shootings came on with a "Bang" and the AR was the weapon of choice. You can't dispute that.

I don't want to ban the AR. I want to regulate them to the next level. Whether they are or are not "The Problem" the public percieves them as such. By moving them to FFL status, you still get to keep your AR but you will be required to get a FFL license. From what you say, you are already in compliance with the requirements so what's stopping you from obtaining the FFL license if it's required for you to have your ARs. The fact remains, not one single gun crime has been done by a person possessing a FFL license since the beginning of time of the FFL licensing history. Now, that's a selling point you can shout to the world and the world will believe you. But it's not always about what's real. It's oftentimes, about what is perceived. And this would be within the 2nd amendment. it's already been contested many times.

AR style rifles are used very rarely.

What do we solve with this?

If we can’t even define a public safety issue, one that requires new law, then what do we gain?

An AR can be used in criminal activity, sure, but as we saw in the Indiana shooting and in Texas, they can be simply substituted

It's the weapon of choice for Mass Shootings. Much like the Thompson was in it's day. It matters little that it's a semi auto or not. It's the cheapest, best and fastest in operation semi auto that has ever been made. When you compare it to the Mini-14, the Mini-14 is heavy, sluggish and hard to handle when you have to reload. You can go through 3 mags on the AR in the time it takes you to empty the Mini-14, change mags, hit the recharging lever and go. The Record goes to the AR hands down in body counts. It doesn't take 3 shooters for a high body count. It only takes one. A M-16-A-4 wouldn't do any better for exactly the same reasons. As long as it's the weapon of choice, it can be deemed a Public Safety Issue and can be Regulated. The only question is how to regulate it. I like my idea of making it FFL. That falls well within the 2nd amendment guidelines.

So what?

Ban it and then some other semiautomatic will be used.

The only way to prevent school shootings is to prevent people with guns from entering a school

There is no gun ban or gun law that will stop a person hell bent on murder

Now if you really want to talk about gun violence why do you focus so much on mass shootings? Mass shootings account for 1% of all murders where 70% of all murders are committed in very small very distinct urban areas that are well known.

Tell me why don't you ever talk about that?

I like the way you list the percentage....but as a suggestion...you should go to actual numbers.....

Using the Mother Jones mass shooting table......there were 71 people killed in 2016 by mass public shooters....( a smaller number than people killed by lawn mowers)

There were a total of 11,004 gun murders in 2016....

10,933 criminal gun murders v 71 murders by mass public shooters.....

I hope that helps.......

US mass shootings, 1982-2018: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

 

[Pellinore]

Okay, my answer to the OP, compiled at 1 am from the chicken-scratch I've been scribbling on this Post-It all day.

Executive: We need to do better enforcing the laws we have. We need to revamp the reporting system of who is ineligible and make sure it is used correctly every time, allow emergency removal of firearms with a judge's approval, penalties for attempting to buy a firearm when you are ineligible, impressively long jail sentences for domestic abusers and those using a firearm in a crime, hold owners responsible for crimes committed with their weapons, and have plenty of armed and capable SRO officers in all middle and high schools. Task the CDC with producing the quantitative study on gun violence; pay for it with a GoFundMe if need be, I bet it will fill in hours.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Social: Build a coalition of news outlets, media corporations, and other reporting agencies from across the spectrum to make non-reporting of a shooter's name the standard. Encourage people to watch for signs of failing mental health in their friends and family and drastically increase the number of free mental health resources available to the public.

Mental Health: Have national mandatory mental health education in every level of school, equal to physical health training, to destigmatize mental health. Provide incentives to insurance companies to provide free annual mental health checkups for all adults, equal to physical health checkups, just free.

The main thing I can't work out is how to have people show that they are of sound mind as they buy a gun. A system that requires a potential buyer to prove it is putting a condition (and presumably a dollar amount) on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but having all psychiatrists report their dangerous patients to the Can't Buy list would be not only violating their right to due process, but exposing their medical history, which is a no-no. We need to have some level of mental safeguard, but I haven't worked out how that would work yet without any undue infringing going on.

List subject to change.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Universal background checks are merely called for by the anti gun leadership because they want gun registration...and the age limit is ridicules......a 20 year old woman, living on her own can't own a gun to protect herself from rape and murder? Really?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

Lending is a legit concern. I have not really thought that out so I don't have an opinion or strategy on how to handle lending; I was referring to sales. Off the top of my head, I would say that overnight lending would generally not be allowed, if for no other reason that it would provide such an easy loophole to circumventing the law ("Yeah, that's mine; I lent it to him twelve years ago and he's had it under his pillow ever since, but I still *own* it") and to get firearms into the hands of those who would fail the checks.

I have not done my due diligence on reading up on Bloomberg's efforts in New York City, so I'm not sure how to interpret the word "ensure." I would oppose any seizure such as what you/the article described; we should never put ourselves in the position of knocking on doors and asking to hand 'em over, whether metaphorically or literally. I also don't support a ban (that is, a move behind the Class III wall) of all semi-automatic rifles or especially pump-action long guns, although I do understand why their presence wouldn't be seen as terribly necessary in a dense, urban environment.

You could probably convince me about the age limit. I'm not very attached to that.

 

[Pellinore]

O


Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales,

Let me tell you what are wrong with background checks.

1. They don't work. That will never stop anybody form getting a gun to be used in a crime. Several of the most recent high profile shootings were from people that passed the NICS screening. Most of the gun crime in this country is by thugs that have illegal firearms and background checks will not stop that.

2. Background checks are a presumption of being guilty and having to prove that you are innocent. Very much against American values.

3. It is getting permission from the government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. One that specifically says shall not be infringed. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the authority of the government. If we have to get permission from the government then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. .

That stupid NFA law is nothing more than an extended background check and taxation and is wrong for the same reasons as I articulated above.

Are you suggesting that I should have to pay a $200 tax to have a standard AR magazine? A magazine that I have never and will never use in a crime?

You do know that the Supreme Court says that you don't have to pay a tax for rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, don't you?

I am, but I also know that although we have Freedom of Assembly, we still need to apply for a permit from the National Park Service before marching on the mall. Although we have Freedom of Religion, we cannot rely on that to infringe on another's rights, such as by claiming our ancient blood religion requires human sacrifice. Although we have Freedom of the Press, we cannot use it to commit libel, and although we have Freedom of Speech, we cannot use it to incite a mob, or yell the age-old example of "Fire!" in a crowded building. And, although we cannot levy poll taxes or restrict voters by race or sex, our states still can limit voting by age, and can require registration first.

My long-winded point being that our Constitutionally protected rights have limitations when they threaten public order or safety. I believe our society and technology has gotten to the point where we need a few adjustments to the lines on the regulation scale.

 

[Flash]

O


Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales,

Let me tell you what are wrong with background checks.

1. They don't work. That will never stop anybody form getting a gun to be used in a crime. Several of the most recent high profile shootings were from people that passed the NICS screening. Most of the gun crime in this country is by thugs that have illegal firearms and background checks will not stop that.

2. Background checks are a presumption of being guilty and having to prove that you are innocent. Very much against American values.

3. It is getting permission from the government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. One that specifically says shall not be infringed. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the authority of the government. If we have to get permission from the government then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. .

That stupid NFA law is nothing more than an extended background check and taxation and is wrong for the same reasons as I articulated above.

Are you suggesting that I should have to pay a $200 tax to have a standard AR magazine? A magazine that I have never and will never use in a crime?

You do know that the Supreme Court says that you don't have to pay a tax for rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, don't you?

I am, but I also know that although we have Freedom of Assembly, we still need to apply for a permit from the National Park Service before marching on the mall. Although we have Freedom of Religion, we cannot rely on that to infringe on another's rights, such as by claiming our ancient blood religion requires human sacrifice. Although we have Freedom of the Press, we cannot use it to commit libel, and although we have Freedom of Speech, we cannot use it to incite a mob, or yell the age-old example of "Fire!" in a crowded building. And, although we cannot levy poll taxes or restrict voters by race or sex, our states still can limit voting by age, and can require registration first.

My long-winded point being that our Constitutionally protected rights have limitations when they threaten public order or safety. I believe our society and technology has gotten to the point where we need a few adjustments to the lines on the regulation scale.

Those permits are for covering the economic cost of the assemblies. Not to chose who can do it and who can't. Big difference than the government using background checks or other onerous, oppressive and ineffective laws to infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. A right that the Constitution clearly says shall not be infringed.

The problem with these filthy ass gun control laws is the concept of "strict scrutiny".

In the case of most of our rights a strict scrutiny is used to determine if restrictions are to be put upon those rights. There has to be a compelling and overwhelming reason reason to restrict the rights.

In the case of gun control strict scrutiny is hardly ever applied. It is whatever the filthy ass anti gun nuts can get away with. That is why we have oppressive laws in the commie states.

 

[candycorn]

Okay, my answer to the OP, compiled at 1 am from the chicken-scratch I've been scribbling on this Post-It all day.

Executive: We need to do better enforcing the laws we have. We need to revamp the reporting system of who is ineligible and make sure it is used correctly every time, allow emergency removal of firearms with a judge's approval, penalties for attempting to buy a firearm when you are ineligible, impressively long jail sentences for domestic abusers and those using a firearm in a crime, hold owners responsible for crimes committed with their weapons, and have plenty of armed and capable SRO officers in all middle and high schools. Task the CDC with producing the quantitative study on gun violence; pay for it with a GoFundMe if need be, I bet it will fill in hours.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Social: Build a coalition of news outlets, media corporations, and other reporting agencies from across the spectrum to make non-reporting of a shooter's name the standard. Encourage people to watch for signs of failing mental health in their friends and family and drastically increase the number of free mental health resources available to the public.

Mental Health: Have national mandatory mental health education in every level of school, equal to physical health training, to destigmatize mental health. Provide incentives to insurance companies to provide free annual mental health checkups for all adults, equal to physical health checkups, just free.

The main thing I can't work out is how to have people show that they are of sound mind as they buy a gun. A system that requires a potential buyer to prove it is putting a condition (and presumably a dollar amount) on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but having all psychiatrists report their dangerous patients to the Can't Buy list would be not only violating their right to due process, but exposing their medical history, which is a no-no. We need to have some level of mental safeguard, but I haven't worked out how that would work yet without any undue infringing going on.

List subject to change.

Everything should be on the table.

One thing I think would help is extend the school day in districts where it is practical to coincide with the real world. Most people will work 9-5 in their adult lives; why does school get out at 3:30 or whatever it is? Get students used to the length of the day. Also, get rid of the ridiculous 100 days off in the Summer or whatever it is. Go to school for 3.5 months at a term, get “off” for 2 weeks during which, you prep for the next term with online assessments, independent study, projects, etc… You’re never really off of school except on weekends. I’m not suggesting no holidays, still have a few days off for Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc… But the gigantic summer vacation needs to go bye bye.

Anyway, get the students going to school like a full time job. Then use the extra time to introduce several new initiatives. Practical skills. Teaching kids to cook for one thing. Every adult should be able to “cook a chicken”. Exposing kids to what type of money they need to make to survive so they don’t go in blind and say, “hey, 11 an hour sounds great” if the job is a dead end job and you’re going to make the 11 on end. GET VOCATION EDUCATION BACK IN SCHOOL!!!! Kids need to understand that there is value in work; not just a paycheck…not just a career…but self satisfaction in cooking a meal yourself, fixing your car, woodshed and making your own desk, bookshelf, cabinet etc… Give them responsibilities instead of assignments. There are dozens of ways you can do this. De-emphasize the outsized importance of grades and enhance the importance of task completion. Not every kid is going to break the bank with their IQ or GPA. Those traits may not be their strengths. Perhaps they are good leaders but not such great students. Grades are important of course and you can’t ignore them but there are all sorts of things that are not reported on a report card.

Here is the gun violence angle. Use the extended class time to, in essence…teach the ten commandments basically. While you can’t install Christianity into the schools because not everyone is a Christian; the universal acceptance of the tenants of the commandments embodies the type of citizens we need to be rearing. This can be done through several methods that are not overtly religious. Everything from choosing literature assignments that teach the downward spiral of theft and lying to positive examples of self sacrifice for the greater good and selfless giving. Have clubs that teach citizenship instead of shooting basketballs or spiking volleyballs. Instead of sending a team across the county to play a meaningless volleyball game, send those kids to sign for senior citizens, or to the VFW hall to hear tales of sacrifice from soldiers. Many may just blow it off but some may decide they want that kind of adventure. Lastly, when the literature/english teacher gives assignments for the five paragraph essays or short stories…make the assignments about values, hope, persistence, dedication, etc… traits that well adjusted adults have.; not current events or the old “what do you want to be when you grow up”? I would pass them over to the school counselors to read to see if there are any red flags.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, my answer to the OP, compiled at 1 am from the chicken-scratch I've been scribbling on this Post-It all day.

Executive: We need to do better enforcing the laws we have. We need to revamp the reporting system of who is ineligible and make sure it is used correctly every time, allow emergency removal of firearms with a judge's approval, penalties for attempting to buy a firearm when you are ineligible, impressively long jail sentences for domestic abusers and those using a firearm in a crime, hold owners responsible for crimes committed with their weapons, and have plenty of armed and capable SRO officers in all middle and high schools. Task the CDC with producing the quantitative study on gun violence; pay for it with a GoFundMe if need be, I bet it will fill in hours.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Social: Build a coalition of news outlets, media corporations, and other reporting agencies from across the spectrum to make non-reporting of a shooter's name the standard. Encourage people to watch for signs of failing mental health in their friends and family and drastically increase the number of free mental health resources available to the public.

Mental Health: Have national mandatory mental health education in every level of school, equal to physical health training, to destigmatize mental health. Provide incentives to insurance companies to provide free annual mental health checkups for all adults, equal to physical health checkups, just free.

The main thing I can't work out is how to have people show that they are of sound mind as they buy a gun. A system that requires a potential buyer to prove it is putting a condition (and presumably a dollar amount) on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but having all psychiatrists report their dangerous patients to the Can't Buy list would be not only violating their right to due process, but exposing their medical history, which is a no-no. We need to have some level of mental safeguard, but I haven't worked out how that would work yet without any undue infringing going on.

List subject to change.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Universal background checks are merely called for by the anti gun leadership because they want gun registration...and the age limit is ridicules......a 20 year old woman, living on her own can't own a gun to protect herself from rape and murder? Really?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

Lending is a legit concern. I have not really thought that out so I don't have an opinion or strategy on how to handle lending; I was referring to sales. Off the top of my head, I would say that overnight lending would generally not be allowed, if for no other reason that it would provide such an easy loophole to circumventing the law ("Yeah, that's mine; I lent it to him twelve years ago and he's had it under his pillow ever since, but I still *own* it") and to get firearms into the hands of those who would fail the checks.

I have not done my due diligence on reading up on Bloomberg's efforts in New York City, so I'm not sure how to interpret the word "ensure." I would oppose any seizure such as what you/the article described; we should never put ourselves in the position of knocking on doors and asking to hand 'em over, whether metaphorically or literally. I also don't support a ban (that is, a move behind the Class III wall) of all semi-automatic rifles or especially pump-action long guns, although I do understand why their presence wouldn't be seen as terribly necessary in a dense, urban environment.

You could probably convince me about the age limit. I'm not very attached to that.

although I do understand why their presence wouldn't be seen as terribly necessary in a dense, urban environment.

Ever see the Korean store owners during the Rodney King Riots...? They were in a dense urban environement as they watched the police retreat from their neighborhood for days.......and the rifles they used, including AR-15s and civilian AK-47s kept their families and their businesses safe.....while a hand gun wouldn't have afforded the intimidation factor to keep large crowds of looters and killers from attacking them...

 

[2aguy]

O


Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales,

Let me tell you what are wrong with background checks.

1. They don't work. That will never stop anybody form getting a gun to be used in a crime. Several of the most recent high profile shootings were from people that passed the NICS screening. Most of the gun crime in this country is by thugs that have illegal firearms and background checks will not stop that.

2. Background checks are a presumption of being guilty and having to prove that you are innocent. Very much against American values.

3. It is getting permission from the government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. One that specifically says shall not be infringed. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the authority of the government. If we have to get permission from the government then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. .

That stupid NFA law is nothing more than an extended background check and taxation and is wrong for the same reasons as I articulated above.

Are you suggesting that I should have to pay a $200 tax to have a standard AR magazine? A magazine that I have never and will never use in a crime?

You do know that the Supreme Court says that you don't have to pay a tax for rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, don't you?

I am, but I also know that although we have Freedom of Assembly, we still need to apply for a permit from the National Park Service before marching on the mall. Although we have Freedom of Religion, we cannot rely on that to infringe on another's rights, such as by claiming our ancient blood religion requires human sacrifice. Although we have Freedom of the Press, we cannot use it to commit libel, and although we have Freedom of Speech, we cannot use it to incite a mob, or yell the age-old example of "Fire!" in a crowded building. And, although we cannot levy poll taxes or restrict voters by race or sex, our states still can limit voting by age, and can require registration first.

My long-winded point being that our Constitutionally protected rights have limitations when they threaten public order or safety. I believe our society and technology has gotten to the point where we need a few adjustments to the lines on the regulation scale.

Those permits are for covering the economic cost of the assemblies. Not to chose who can do it and who can't. Big difference than the government using background checks or other onerous, oppressive and ineffective laws to infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. A right that the Constitution clearly says shall not be infringed.

The problem with these filthy ass gun control laws is the concept of "strict scrutiny".

In the case of most of our rights a strict scrutiny is used to determine if restrictions are to be put upon those rights. There has to be a compelling and overwhelming reason reason to restrict the rights.

In the case of gun control strict scrutiny is hardly ever applied. It is whatever the filthy ass anti gun nuts can get away with. That is why we have oppressive laws in the commie states.

Also, the permit in a public place is needed because their may be different groups wanting to use the same public space on the same day....which is not physically possible so a permit system for the temporary space is needed......it also, as you said, covers the cost of police and other services that may be needed...

Licensing guns is simply a way to generate revenue and a way to discourage gun ownership......and a way to place legal gun owners in legal peril for owning a gun.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay, my answer to the OP, compiled at 1 am from the chicken-scratch I've been scribbling on this Post-It all day.

Executive: We need to do better enforcing the laws we have. We need to revamp the reporting system of who is ineligible and make sure it is used correctly every time, allow emergency removal of firearms with a judge's approval, penalties for attempting to buy a firearm when you are ineligible, impressively long jail sentences for domestic abusers and those using a firearm in a crime, hold owners responsible for crimes committed with their weapons, and have plenty of armed and capable SRO officers in all middle and high schools. Task the CDC with producing the quantitative study on gun violence; pay for it with a GoFundMe if need be, I bet it will fill in hours.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Social: Build a coalition of news outlets, media corporations, and other reporting agencies from across the spectrum to make non-reporting of a shooter's name the standard. Encourage people to watch for signs of failing mental health in their friends and family and drastically increase the number of free mental health resources available to the public.

Mental Health: Have national mandatory mental health education in every level of school, equal to physical health training, to destigmatize mental health. Provide incentives to insurance companies to provide free annual mental health checkups for all adults, equal to physical health checkups, just free.

The main thing I can't work out is how to have people show that they are of sound mind as they buy a gun. A system that requires a potential buyer to prove it is putting a condition (and presumably a dollar amount) on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but having all psychiatrists report their dangerous patients to the Can't Buy list would be not only violating their right to due process, but exposing their medical history, which is a no-no. We need to have some level of mental safeguard, but I haven't worked out how that would work yet without any undue infringing going on.

List subject to change.

An FFL requirement for gun owners would also address the issue of universal background checks as one gun owner could sell only to a fellow FFL holder, including private party intrastate gun transactions.

I wouldn’t have a problem with an FFL requirement for gun owners – I hate filling out the 4473 and when I picked up my SP 101 last Thursday we had to wait for a ‘call back’ for the NICS background check.

All of which could have been avoided if I had an FFL: I’d walk into the LGS, show my license, and go home.

Ensuring comprehensive mental health detection and treatment is also a good idea but that could only be implemented pursuant to a universal/single payer program – and clearly the political will is not there for such a program.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, my answer to the OP, compiled at 1 am from the chicken-scratch I've been scribbling on this Post-It all day.

Executive: We need to do better enforcing the laws we have. We need to revamp the reporting system of who is ineligible and make sure it is used correctly every time, allow emergency removal of firearms with a judge's approval, penalties for attempting to buy a firearm when you are ineligible, impressively long jail sentences for domestic abusers and those using a firearm in a crime, hold owners responsible for crimes committed with their weapons, and have plenty of armed and capable SRO officers in all middle and high schools. Task the CDC with producing the quantitative study on gun violence; pay for it with a GoFundMe if need be, I bet it will fill in hours.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Social: Build a coalition of news outlets, media corporations, and other reporting agencies from across the spectrum to make non-reporting of a shooter's name the standard. Encourage people to watch for signs of failing mental health in their friends and family and drastically increase the number of free mental health resources available to the public.

Mental Health: Have national mandatory mental health education in every level of school, equal to physical health training, to destigmatize mental health. Provide incentives to insurance companies to provide free annual mental health checkups for all adults, equal to physical health checkups, just free.

The main thing I can't work out is how to have people show that they are of sound mind as they buy a gun. A system that requires a potential buyer to prove it is putting a condition (and presumably a dollar amount) on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but having all psychiatrists report their dangerous patients to the Can't Buy list would be not only violating their right to due process, but exposing their medical history, which is a no-no. We need to have some level of mental safeguard, but I haven't worked out how that would work yet without any undue infringing going on.

List subject to change.

An FFL requirement for gun owners would also address the issue of universal background checks as one gun owner could sell only to a fellow FFL holder, including private party intrastate gun transactions.

I wouldn’t have a problem with an FFL requirement for gun owners – I hate filling out the 4473 and when I picked up my SP 101 last Thursday we had to wait for a ‘call back’ for the NICS background check.

All of which could have been avoided if I had an FFL: I’d walk into the LGS, show my license, and go home.

Ensuring comprehensive mental health detection and treatment is also a good idea but that could only be implemented pursuant to a universal/single payer program – and clearly the political will is not there for such a program.

Yes..... and again.... Unconstitutional, Haynes v United States and Murdock v Pennsylvania....but thanks for pretending to know about the U.S. Constitution...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay, my answer to the OP, compiled at 1 am from the chicken-scratch I've been scribbling on this Post-It all day.

Executive: We need to do better enforcing the laws we have. We need to revamp the reporting system of who is ineligible and make sure it is used correctly every time, allow emergency removal of firearms with a judge's approval, penalties for attempting to buy a firearm when you are ineligible, impressively long jail sentences for domestic abusers and those using a firearm in a crime, hold owners responsible for crimes committed with their weapons, and have plenty of armed and capable SRO officers in all middle and high schools. Task the CDC with producing the quantitative study on gun violence; pay for it with a GoFundMe if need be, I bet it will fill in hours.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Social: Build a coalition of news outlets, media corporations, and other reporting agencies from across the spectrum to make non-reporting of a shooter's name the standard. Encourage people to watch for signs of failing mental health in their friends and family and drastically increase the number of free mental health resources available to the public.

Mental Health: Have national mandatory mental health education in every level of school, equal to physical health training, to destigmatize mental health. Provide incentives to insurance companies to provide free annual mental health checkups for all adults, equal to physical health checkups, just free.

The main thing I can't work out is how to have people show that they are of sound mind as they buy a gun. A system that requires a potential buyer to prove it is putting a condition (and presumably a dollar amount) on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but having all psychiatrists report their dangerous patients to the Can't Buy list would be not only violating their right to due process, but exposing their medical history, which is a no-no. We need to have some level of mental safeguard, but I haven't worked out how that would work yet without any undue infringing going on.

List subject to change.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Universal background checks are merely called for by the anti gun leadership because they want gun registration...and the age limit is ridicules......a 20 year old woman, living on her own can't own a gun to protect herself from rape and murder? Really?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

Lending is a legit concern. I have not really thought that out so I don't have an opinion or strategy on how to handle lending; I was referring to sales. Off the top of my head, I would say that overnight lending would generally not be allowed, if for no other reason that it would provide such an easy loophole to circumventing the law ("Yeah, that's mine; I lent it to him twelve years ago and he's had it under his pillow ever since, but I still *own* it") and to get firearms into the hands of those who would fail the checks.

I have not done my due diligence on reading up on Bloomberg's efforts in New York City, so I'm not sure how to interpret the word "ensure." I would oppose any seizure such as what you/the article described; we should never put ourselves in the position of knocking on doors and asking to hand 'em over, whether metaphorically or literally. I also don't support a ban (that is, a move behind the Class III wall) of all semi-automatic rifles or especially pump-action long guns, although I do understand why their presence wouldn't be seen as terribly necessary in a dense, urban environment.

You could probably convince me about the age limit. I'm not very attached to that.

An FFL requirement would also address the lending issue – one may lend only to a fellow FFL holder.

The same would be true for minors ‘owning’ guns – the adult who has custody, care, and control of a child must be an FFL holder, responsible for the minor’s gun.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, my answer to the OP, compiled at 1 am from the chicken-scratch I've been scribbling on this Post-It all day.

Executive: We need to do better enforcing the laws we have. We need to revamp the reporting system of who is ineligible and make sure it is used correctly every time, allow emergency removal of firearms with a judge's approval, penalties for attempting to buy a firearm when you are ineligible, impressively long jail sentences for domestic abusers and those using a firearm in a crime, hold owners responsible for crimes committed with their weapons, and have plenty of armed and capable SRO officers in all middle and high schools. Task the CDC with producing the quantitative study on gun violence; pay for it with a GoFundMe if need be, I bet it will fill in hours.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Social: Build a coalition of news outlets, media corporations, and other reporting agencies from across the spectrum to make non-reporting of a shooter's name the standard. Encourage people to watch for signs of failing mental health in their friends and family and drastically increase the number of free mental health resources available to the public.

Mental Health: Have national mandatory mental health education in every level of school, equal to physical health training, to destigmatize mental health. Provide incentives to insurance companies to provide free annual mental health checkups for all adults, equal to physical health checkups, just free.

The main thing I can't work out is how to have people show that they are of sound mind as they buy a gun. A system that requires a potential buyer to prove it is putting a condition (and presumably a dollar amount) on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but having all psychiatrists report their dangerous patients to the Can't Buy list would be not only violating their right to due process, but exposing their medical history, which is a no-no. We need to have some level of mental safeguard, but I haven't worked out how that would work yet without any undue infringing going on.

List subject to change.

Legislative: Universal background checks even for private sales, and move bump stocks and large-capacity magazines behind the Class III barrier. I vacillate on a 21 year old age limit; I'm not sure about that. Mandate locks and safes for all households with both minors and firearms.

Universal background checks are merely called for by the anti gun leadership because they want gun registration...and the age limit is ridicules......a 20 year old woman, living on her own can't own a gun to protect herself from rape and murder? Really?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

Lending is a legit concern. I have not really thought that out so I don't have an opinion or strategy on how to handle lending; I was referring to sales. Off the top of my head, I would say that overnight lending would generally not be allowed, if for no other reason that it would provide such an easy loophole to circumventing the law ("Yeah, that's mine; I lent it to him twelve years ago and he's had it under his pillow ever since, but I still *own* it") and to get firearms into the hands of those who would fail the checks.

I have not done my due diligence on reading up on Bloomberg's efforts in New York City, so I'm not sure how to interpret the word "ensure." I would oppose any seizure such as what you/the article described; we should never put ourselves in the position of knocking on doors and asking to hand 'em over, whether metaphorically or literally. I also don't support a ban (that is, a move behind the Class III wall) of all semi-automatic rifles or especially pump-action long guns, although I do understand why their presence wouldn't be seen as terribly necessary in a dense, urban environment.

You could probably convince me about the age limit. I'm not very attached to that.

An FFL requirement would also address the lending issue – one may lend only to a fellow FFL holder.

The same would be true for minors ‘owning’ guns – the adult who has custody, care, and control of a child must be an FFL holder, responsible for the minor’s gun.

Yes...... you should also have to get a license, say an FFL for becoming a writer, journalist or simply posting on the internet.....and in order to read the writings of a license holder you too should also have to have a license from the government......then, in order to vote, you should also be required to pay a fee to get a license to vote.....and in order to discuss the election, you will only be allowed to discuss political views with fellow license holders.....You should be required to get a license to own an electronic devise that allows you to post on the internet....computers, I-pads and the like...to make sure you are not a criminal involved in identity theft, porn, child porn, terrorism.....and you should not be allowed to have anyone else on your electronic devise except for other license holders....

By golly, this is a great idea....do you know how much crime could be stopped by requiring a license for any form of political speech or speech in general, or for the owning of electronic devises.....

I see where you are going with this.......

I'll pass....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You can't find a solution until first you define a problem to solve.

Saying you are seeking a solution to "Gun Violence" implies that all death from firearms are the same, and it really is not that simple.

It is over simplification to throw all deaths, when a gun is used into a single box, which is what I believe you want because it creates panic and paranoia. But putting that aside, lets look at the main categories of death via firearm to see what can be, or can't be accomplished in each.

1. SUICIDE: 2/3rds of all death by firearms are by suicide. A gun is not a requirement for those seeking to kill themselves. Other methods are available that many times even kill other innocents when implemented. Even Countries like Japan, South Korea and France, with strict gun control laws have suicide rates nearly as high or higher than the United States. Suicide is indeed illegal here, but a legal deterrent is not a remedy to someone who wants to kill themselves.

So how do you stop suicide?

2. GANG RELATED KILLING: The second leading cause of death that involves a firearm is gang related killings. These account for 80% of the remaining deaths. I fail to see how we can deter these by passage of a law, when the legal deterrent against murder is already life in prison to the use of the Death Penalty. Gun locks and secure safes? I don't think a gang member really cares if the law mandates these as they break laws as a way of life. Better training? Do we really want Gang members better trained?

3. DOMESTIC MURDER OR SELF DEFENSE DURING DOMESTIC ALTERCATION: These account for a relatively small number as compared to the first two categories. Again, the criminal penalty for murder is life in prison or the application of the death penalty. What possible additional legal deterrent are we to place on the abuser that is greater than these?

And in many of these killings the gun is not required to kill the weaker victim. These killings happen even in heavily gun controlled areas in the world by the use of other tools such as knife, blunt objects, poison and dozens and dozens of other method.

In this category is also those that killed in self defense, or the defense of another household member. The use of the gun by the victim of the abuse in many cases are completely justifiable, and not having the firearm would have increased the chances of the victims death.

4. THE USE OF A FIREARM BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: Typically done in defense of self or others.

5. ACCIDENTAL DEATH: Extremely rare, it averages roughly 1.5 times per day in a country of 327,000,000 people.

6. MASS SHOOTINGS: Of all the categories, this one involves the fewest deaths per year, but is the most sensational.

If I failed to include a category go ahead and make me aware of it, but I fail to see how these 6 categories can be lumped into a single box if we really want to problem solve.

/----/ All excellent points but the Gun Grabbers will ignore you and will keep banging the drum to repeal and confiscate.
View attachment 196163

True, they are more interested in creating paranoia and panic, thus votes, than to decrease the death toll. As has been demonstrated, confiscation, at best reduces the over all death count by only a few.

So I continue to ask, what is the problem we are looking to solve?

During the AR ban, the AR crime rate was drastically reduced. Right after it was allowed to run out, the school shootings came on with a "Bang" and the AR was the weapon of choice. You can't dispute that.

I don't want to ban the AR. I want to regulate them to the next level. Whether they are or are not "The Problem" the public percieves them as such. By moving them to FFL status, you still get to keep your AR but you will be required to get a FFL license. From what you say, you are already in compliance with the requirements so what's stopping you from obtaining the FFL license if it's required for you to have your ARs. The fact remains, not one single gun crime has been done by a person possessing a FFL license since the beginning of time of the FFL licensing history. Now, that's a selling point you can shout to the world and the world will believe you. But it's not always about what's real. It's oftentimes, about what is perceived. And this would be within the 2nd amendment. it's already been contested many times.

An idea worthy of exploring.

But rather than just ARs, instead afford citizens an FFL for any firearm, much like the FFL 03, except not limited to firearms over 50 years old or guns designated as C and R.

Advantages:

No more 4473s to fill out, no waiting periods, no background checks – go to your LGS, buy your gun, take it home.

And with an FFL, a citizen can buy a gun online and have it delivered to his home, no need to ship it to an FFL 01 for a transfer (and the transfer fee).

Last, the FFL would also serve as a concealed carry license valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, superseding all state and local concealed carry laws.

The background check would be conducted as part of the application process, the license would be valid for three years, with a $30 renewal fee.

Disadvantages:

No FFL, no guns – even if one is not otherwise a prohibited person

License holders must maintain a bound book and record all firearm transactions.

License holders must keep meticulous, comprehensive records.

Bound books and a transaction records would be subject to ATF review.

One cannot get an FFL for solely personal gun purchases

Thinking About Getting Your Own FFL? - The Truth About Guns

Before going any further, it’s important to point out some of the stipulations the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (also known as ATF) puts on federal firearms licenses. First, you must plan to do transfers for others. It can’t be 100% all personal use. This means you can’t get a FFL simply to buy a whole bunch of guns for yourself.

You are blowing smoke. I wonder why you are doing this. Oh, I know. You are trying to defend against the AR from becoming a FFL licensed weapon. Here is a bit of fact.
FFL Dealer – Personal Gun Purchase
Sole proprietor FFL licensees not only enables you to be classed as a gun collector but as a dealer as well. You can buy and sell under the FFL license to anyone that has a FFL license and you can buy and sell to yourself for your own personal collection. You don't have to buy and sell to anyone outside of yourself if you don't want to. You are listed as a gun dealer but you don't have to deal to outside sources. You can only deal for yourself if you wish. When you purchase a firearm using your FFL, you are purchasing as a Dealer. Then, as a Dealer, you are selling to yourself and transferring ownership from your Dealer Self to your Private Self. Nothing forces you to sell to outside sources. Chances are, you will sell to outside sources though to others. You see, a FFL licensed dealer gets one hell of a big discount when he buys almost anything. This may make you the cats pajamas for your community.