Footnote to Timmy4 's Topic: Give an example of a gun control law that would work?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J-Bar

J-Bar

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
4,992
Location
Springfield, MO
Timmy4's thread is 15 pages and growing. It is an impressive discussion, but I got lost in reading through it.

Perhaps an example has already been given in that (or some other) thread, but I would like for one of the anti-gunners to state what law, if passed, would really prevent tragedies like Newtown/Sandy Hook from ever occuring again, and what law would prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. It's obvious that outlawing assault weapons and reducing magazine size will not prevent these things from happening.`

I don't think it is possible to formulate and implement such a law, but if the anti-gunners say they want laws to prevent these things without taking away Second Amendment rights from law abiding citizens, I would like to hear what they are proposing.

Hopefully this will be a short thread. I am asking the anti-gunners who are reading it to give us their proposals. I know where the rest of you guys stand, but if you can think of such a law feel free to chime in.
 
Perhaps an example has already been given in that (or some other) thread, but I would like for one of the anti-gunners to state what law, if passed, would really prevent tragedies like Newtown/Sandy Hook from ever occuring again, and what law would prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. It's obvious that outlawing assault weapons and reducing magazine size will not prevent these things from happening.`
Click to expand...

the one problem many people fail to realize, is that laws do not prevent crime....they simply allow a person to be charged after the fact....

that is how they are designed, that is how they work, and any person who think passing a law will prevent an action is not fit to hold office....

murder is illegal.......people get killed every day.

theft is illegal......stuff gets stolen every day.

perjury is illegal.....people lie all the time.
 
what law would prevent criminals from obtaining firearms
Click to expand...

The answer lies in better and earlier identification of the mentally ill. Most of the recent shooters had a diagnosis and the system was slow in getting them treatment.
Since the movement to close state hospitals in the 80's, we have a bunch of untreated or misdiagnosed people running around and then when they act out, the government blames the tool.
 
I've looked at this issue hard since Sandy Hook (and somewhat before) and I'm firmly of the opinion that nothing on earth could actually prevent these sorts of tragedies from happening. And, honestly, these shooting events tend to be LESS scary and tragic than the alternatives we might push such guys to if guns were somehow made "impossible" to get (allowing that that in itself is impossible to do): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_González_(arsonist) How about 87 murders with $5 worth of gasoline?

Or 168 dead and almost 700 wounded with a little more preperation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
 
Gun control, when shown to not working will lead to more control and ultimately gun bans.

All banning guns will do is give the mob and drug cartels another product to sell. Just look at Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

If only the most popular segment of the gun industry is banned (aka gun control) first, the market for the illegal sellers will still be there as those class of guns will be sold on the black market. What bad guy would not want them.

The mindset of the people need to change relative to doing harm and crime before the stats go down. Law enforcement needs to step up its enforcement and the courts need to get harder on convicted criminals. Make crime undesirable. Right now, the rewards of crime far out weight the risks.

Finally, criminals from the street thug to the biggest dictator will attack where he is most likely to succeed. A gun free society provides easy pickings.

Education will work. Gun control will not.
 
And, honestly, these shooting events tend to be LESS scary and tragic than the alternatives we might push such guys to if guns were somehow made "impossible" to get
Click to expand...

+1

The highest tolls (and the most macabre fates) at the hands of evil people do not involve firearms at all.
 
Analogy time:

It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and it's not protected speech under the 1st Amendment. That does not mean that we forcibly gag every law abiding citizen entering a theater to prevent it.
 
Violent acts, both random and premeditated, including mass murder, existed well before gun powder was invented. Even if there was some magic wand that could be waved which would remove guns from only the hands of those who would use them to perpetrate violence, the violence would still remain.

Regulation or elimination of random tools through which violence may be perpetrated does nothing to address or eliminate violence itself. It merely limits the non-violent and productive use of those tools. Other tools will simply be used to perpetrate violence.

This would be an entirely different situation if we lived in enlightened times, where dementia, violence, rage, jealousy, greed, megalomania, corruption, and other "uncivilized" aspects of humanity did not exist. But, alas, we do not. And as a civilized society, we cannot allow our government to usurp the natural rights of the people at large, even if the intent of such usurpation is presented as a benevolent method of protecting society from the less civilized among us.
 
A pseudo gun control law that will work: keep the people who should not have guns away from places where guns can be acquired---specifically, the streets.

Guns are involved in crimes, but they also rest in the hands of the law-abiding. So, the only way to keep criminals and mentally ill from getting guns while still allowing law-abiding citizens un-infringed access to guns is to separate the criminals and the mentally ill from places where they can gain access to guns. As long as they are free to mix with the non-criminal and mentally competent populous, they will find ways to get guns. That means the solution is to keep the criminals incarcerated and mentally ill under constant and accountable supervision (yeah, that might mean institutionalized).

Do these two things, and a major chunk of the "gun crimes" go away because the major producers of "gun crimes" are off the streets.
 
Morcey, it is legal to shout fire in a crowded theater, if there is indeed a fire. The case addressed speech which fit the criteria of being both false and dangerous.

From the original Holmes opinion in Schenck v. US [emphasis mine]:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Click to expand...
 
Your best bet is instead of legislating guns out of people's hands, let the people choose. If you aren't restricted from carrying anywhere you go, most legit gun owners who carry would carry everywhere. Ask any detective anywhere, witnesses solve 90% of crimes because the police weren't there when it happened, but the witness was. Turn those witnesses into legal, mindful, and responsible armed citizens and they would be telling the stories of crimes they stopped instead of crimes they saw. Not suggesting it is the CCW holder's job to fight crime, not at all - but it is the CCW holder's job to intervene when a madman is shooting innocent civilians, especially children.

Here's a question I would like to see researched: Were any of the adults at Sandy Hook CCW holders that were legally forced to be unarmed that day? That might have made a difference.
 
morcey2 said:
Analogy time:

It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and it's not protected speech under the 1st Amendment. That does not mean that we forcibly gag every law abiding citizen entering a theater to prevent it.
Click to expand...
Excellent point!

Very eloquent, too. :)
 
If a firearm is used in a crime, mandatory life, no exceptions, no early release or parole, EVER.

If a firearm is discharged while being used in a crime, death penalty, without 20 years of appeals.
 
If a firearm is discharged while being used in a crime, death penalty, without 20 years of appeals.
Click to expand...
Sounds great until some poor guy is railroaded into court and convicted of murder because he defended his life, and the bad guy happened to be at an angle which constituted being "shot in the back." Bam, instant dead good guy.
 
The only concession I MIGHT consider reasonable would be a quick background check at entrance to gun shows. No criminals inside... no record of sale(aka registration in disguise). Only downside would be wait time. CCW = walk right in.

I still don't like it as its treating every law abiding citizen like a criminal... but that is the closest to reasonable I can think of.


Would it work? No more gun show "loophole" to cry about... but criminals will just seek a gun elsewhere... so no it would not work.
 
Incarcerate the RIGHT criminals

Most states struggle under the costs of overcrowded prisons, probation systems, and courtrooms. Why? Many of the incarcerated are there for non-violent drug offenses. Legalize marijuana nationwide, tax it, and free all those in prison for non-kingpin level drug possession offenses. Prisons now have the room to incarcerate more dangerous criminals to include those committing gun related crimes. The legal system is unclogged, and can pursue the more dangerous perps.

Force the ATF to pursue and prosecute straw-man crimes, and persons who lie on gun purchase applications, and other persons that are caught letting guns get into the hands of criminals. Get an ATF director that wants to focus on gun crimes, not pursuing an agenda that wants more laws that serve no effective purpose and only punish law abiding citizens and dealers.
 
Force the ATF to pursue and prosecute straw-man crimes, and persons who lie on gun purchase applications, and other persons that are caught letting guns get into the hands of criminals.
Click to expand...
The first step to this would have to be reform of the definition of "straw man" sales. As it is they are too nebulous and often unenforced and/or impossible to enforce.

Get rid of the language that makes it possible for a (non-prohibited) husband and wife, father and son, good friends, etc. to commit this "crime" simply by purchasing for each other (the whole "is it a gift?" who's money?, etc. fog) and make the entire question based on whether the person receiving the gun is a prohibited person. Right now the law prohibits sales which never in any way involve someone who would be unlawful to purchase a firearm. Fix that and we can talk about "stronger enforcement." Until then, stronger enforcement is just going to end up with more "innocent but ignorant" folks getting nailed.
 
OK, I'll bite.

Here's an example of a gun control law that would work:

Get caught and convicted of commiting a violent crime with a firearm, go to prison and have your rights to own a firearm revoked. Part of "go to prison" may also include having a seat in that chair with all those straps and cables attached to it, if warranted.

Get caught with a firearm again after serving time for a violent crime with a firearm, go right back to prison, no parole.

In otherwords...how's about we enforce the laws we already have on the books?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top