An Actual conversation about Firearms Regulations in the LA times

[IdahoSkies]

This is a very interesting pieces from the LA times. It seems like an actual conversation on the problems with the current firearms regulatory system.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/comm...argain-20131215,0,2158079.story#axzz2nTbhTMeR

Proposals about automatic restoration of rights for some offenders, flexibility for some FFL paperwork violations, etc. There is some discussion about some increased background check requirements, no real specifics about how that would actually work (which with the last bill we know the devil is all about the details). Wondered what everyone thought about this piece.

 

[hovercat]

Might as well work something out with that pesky freedom of the press thing while we are at it.
Sensitivity and political correctness training before getting a gov permit, which can be revoked, to submit a story. Then a system of licensed persons who (for a fee) can submit the story to a gov agency for approval. These commonsense laws will ensure that no-one will be offended by inaccurate reports.

 

[wgp]

When people ask me about new gun laws, I usually ask them this: What law do you propose that will actually STOP criminal use of guns, as opposed to just making something else illegal for law-abiding people. We should have learned by now that making something illegal certainly does not mean you've stopped that activity from ever happening again. The only thing I've ever come up with is the absolute abolition (not prohibition, I mean abolition) of all guns from the planet, which I submit cannot be done.

This is not a bad article, but as long as guns exist, and as long as there are people willing to violate laws, there are going to be bad things that occur in the world.

 

[barnbwt]

At least it isnt defamatory, and it at least tries to claim legitimacy to both sides of the argument. However it still avoids any sort of actual discussion of reasons for one course of action versus another, so not very insightful. Basically "can't we all get along?"

No. Not so long as only one side seeks to dominate the other. There can be no stability in such an unbalanced equation, and we aren't trying to similarly impose upon them through our actions.

TCB

 

[316SS]

This is not a bad article, but as long as guns exist, and as long as there are people willing to violate laws, there are going to be bad things that occur in the world.

Even in a world without guns, there are going to be bad things that occur.

 

[carpboy]

Look at who the authors are.

 

[happygeek]

When people ask me about new gun laws, I usually ask them this: What law do you propose that will actually STOP criminal use of guns, as opposed to just making something else illegal for law-abiding people.

More importantly, will it lower the homicide and/or violent crime rate. Anti-gunners always talk about how "this will help keep guns out of the wrong hands", but if the proposed law doesn't lower the homicide rate then what's the point?

 

[316SS]

if the proposed law doesn't lower the homicide rate then what's the point?

This is the point.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I would never support any expansion of background checks as long as the underlying semi-decentralized structure established by the 1968 Gun Control Act is in place. That is effectively registration and it will end badly for gun owners. You could do background checks without creating an individual record of each firearm sold but so far the antis have rejected every legislative proposal that even comes close to that - which should be a clear signal of their intentions as you can get.

And while this article attempts to sell itself as being pro-gun and anti-gun coming together, Richard Feldman is an ex-firearms lobbyist for a reason - and it isn't because he was too supportive of gun rights. All of the proposals are effectively more restrictive: minimal federal mandated standards for CHL? It doesn't take a genius to see where that will go. De-facto registration of firearms? And in return for what? Those who can still get a CHL can carry it in all 50 states, you tell us all the guns you own and we agree to disagree about which ones we'll let you keep for now? We allow some felons to become temporary prohibited persons in return for making more misdemeanor crimes prohibited? FFLs can now be fined out of existence instead of the time consuming process of taking their license away.

Some deal.

The real problem here is to have a negotiation, you must have good faith and there is none between the two sides of this argument - and for damn good reason too. Every time they get the opportunity, the antis make it clear (1994 AWB) that they are all about punishing legitimate gun owners.

 

[km101]

Nothing concrete, just more laws and regulations which will not work any better than what we now have.

 

[threefeathers]

I don't think we need a plethora of new laws. However enforcement of current laws will probably do a pretty decent job of lowering criminal use of guns.

 

[Hacker15E]

Meanwhile, on background checks, polls consistently show that more than three-quarters of Americans, including clear majorities of gun owners, support expanding background checks.

Well, that's progress: the media isn't repeating the "90% of Americans support" tripe.

 

[goon]

It is hard to argue for more gun laws when the ones already on the books bring so few criminals to justice.

And it's hard to even approach the idea of trusting the current administration and its lackeys given some of the stunts they've been responsible for lately. Right now, about 2/3 of my government has zero credibility, so the idea of trusting them to act for the common good and just silently surrendering any rights to them... yeah, I'm not on board with that.