A few questions for those in favor of stricter firearms law...

[Flyboy_451]

There are a variety of measures supported by an equally large and diverse cross section of people involved in the debate. Views of those who support increased restrictions seem to range from mild to wild, including everything from closing the "Gun show Loophole" to an all out ban on ownership by private citizens.

There seems to be little discussion on unintended consequences, or what would happen if laws were seen not to be effective. This leads to my questions. For the sake of this discussion, please assume that any factors that contribute to crime, violence and firearms accidents, yet are not directly affected by firearms law, remain unchanged.

If the laws that you support or propose were passed tomorrow, what results would be your goal (being as specific as possible), and by what measure would you judge success or failure of said laws?

One of the arguments frequently used in opposition to the idea of bans and restrictions on concealed carry is that it leaves the average citizen at the mercy of armed criminals who would ignore such laws and continue to seek firearms through illicit sources. Laws of any type would require some amount of time to even have a chance at achieving the desired results. If the number of successful defenses against criminals decrease dramatically and violence in general increased, or even remained unchanged, how long would you be willing to wait before calling the laws a failure and acting to rescind them? Or, would you ever act to rescind laws that had no apparent positive effect?

JW

[rrneck]

1. ....

:popcorn:

[Remmah2]

2. ...........

:popcorn:

[spin]

3. .........

[Fresh_Start]

4. I just want to stop seeing jackasses with guns

killing their spouses, parents, siblings, ex-spouses, children, in-laws.
I don't even care about their suicide as long as they don't take someone else with them.

I don't care how many cars, televisions, cellphones, money are lost because someone didn't have a gun to defend their property. In my view, all the property in the country is not worth a human life.

[SteveM]

5. Sooo, what laws do you propose? nt

[Fresh_Start]

8. registration, periodic licensing including background search,

guns safes and/or trigger locks
microstamping
loss of the privilege to own guns if found irresponsible about gun safety (for example, allowing access so that your 6 year old brings a gun to show and tell)

the hard nut to crack is how to remove guns once some one deteriorates mentally, physically or emotionally

[rl6214]

9. Won't work

Registration...so you want the govt to make lists of people, kinda like the patriot act...McCarthyism

Periodic Licensing...so you want the govt to make lists of people, kinda like the patriot act...McCarthyism

Gun safes and/or trigger locks...trigger locks are sold with every new gun sold today and distributed regularly by the NRA. Gun safes cannot be a requirement to gun ownership because it is unenforceable.

Microstamping...dosen't work. Easy to change out parts or file down parts to remove the microstaming. Also won't work with revolvers.

Loss of privelege to own guns...So they lose the privilege just like a felon does? I would guess there would need to be a trial for this to take place. In other words charge the person responsible? I think there are already laws on the books in many if not most places and the firearm is not returned to the parent.

[Fresh_Start]

10. strangely enough all your "McCarthyism" fear mongering

is already in place in most of the country for cars, planes, boats, voting, and even home ownership.
And yet we haven't been rounded up and put into prisons in spite of being on those lists.

So please stop with foolish "MyCarthy-ism".

[melm00se]

11. let's see

cars - ownership/possession not an explicit Constitutional right
planes - ownership/possession not an explicit Constitutional right
boats - ownership/possession not an explicit Constitutional right
even home ownership - ownership/possession not an explicit Constitutional right
firearms - ownership/possession is an explicit Constitutional right (reaffirmed by the Heller decision)

[Fresh_Start]

13. property rights are explicit in the Constitution

which would include all of the above and even slaves at that point in history

[rl6214]

12. It's not MY McCarthyism

Also no one has ever called for an outright BAN of any of those items that are NOT protected by the constitution.

Couldn't find anything else to focus on? No answeres for any of the points I made?

[Fresh_Start]

14. sorry the constitution does protect those items

but I guess you stopped reading after the 2nd amendment.

[rl6214]

15. In other words

you've got nuthin.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

24. Not quite the same thing.

Cars are not required to be registered to be owned - merely to be driven on public roads. You can buy all the cars you want, and drive them all you want, on private property.

Planes and boats are similar to cars in that respect - and again, the registration is for the vehicle, not the owner and only when used in the public airways or on public waterways. Want to buy a boat to only use in your backyard pond? No registration required.

Voting is not a right - it is and always has been a privilege. Registration serves the purpose of ensuring nobody votes twice.

Home ownership only requires "registration" insofar as you have to have a title to the property. That practice predates this nation by a few hundred years and serves a very valid purpose. It protects the owner not the government, and your ability to buy it is not dependent upon any limitation the government creates, but rather your own finances.

So, basically, none of your examples are valid. Try again.

[Hoyt]

16. Just because you'd freak if those were enacted, doesn't mean it won't help.

And, it doesn't have to be 100% effective, or even 40% effective.

[rl6214]

18. Who said anything about freaking?

The only one that "freaks" around here is you.

I see you won't address any of the suggestions listed yourself, maybe because you know they won't work. In fact you NEVER have any suggestions, just mindless tripe about cowboys hips and your make believe senarios.

[NewMoonTherian]

19. How effective would it have to be...

to warrant keeping the law? Does it need to be effective at all? Would you keep a ban, registration scheme, etc. in place if it had no positive effect?

[Flyboy_451]

17. while i appreciate your response, you have failed to adress the questions posed...

If all of these were put into effect, and no apparent benefit was seen after some reasonable amout of time, say ten years just to put a number on it, would you be willing to call the plan a failed attempt?

since your suggestions included mandated safe storage requirements, would this include keeping all guns in such a manner that they would not be readily usable for defense of an owners home? If this were the case, and trends showed an increase in the number of home invasions that resulted in serious injury or death, would this alter your viewpoint?

JW

[We_Have_A_Problem]

23. Lets look at your "solutions"...

Registration: Not going to happen, and even if it weren't explicitly illegal, its functionally impossible.
Licensing: See registration. Same problem.
Background search: Well we already have the NICS check to make sure nobody has a criminal history.
Gun safes: That creates a financial bar to ownership, and how do you confirm they are used?
Trigger locks: Already on the market for those who want them. How do you force usage?
Microstamping: VERY easily defeated, adds unnecessary cost and complexity, ultimately creates a way for the criminal to get out of the crime rather than an effective crime-fighting tool.
Loss of privilege: Gun ownership isn't a privilege. It is a right. End of discussion.

[SteveM]

25. As the OP asks, how will these measures affect what social problem?

How can they be measured?

Not to be tedious about this, but these measures you offer have been offered for years without any real notion as to how they will address specific problems.

I note that gun safes and trigger locks have been around a long time, and apparently are used, as childhood deaths due to firearms miss-use in the home are down, and have fallen more than the other categories measured by the National Safety Council.

Concerning "mental" deterioration, FFL gun sales can be prevented if one has been adjudicated mentally incompetent. I do not know if guns can be removed from someone adjudicated mentally incompetent, but I believe that is so as well.

Gun registration is a non-starter as this gives the government the power to trace ALL gun owners, hence defeating one of the purposes of the Second Amendment: The ability to keep and bear arms against despots as well as criminals.

[Flyboy_451]

6. I am pretty sure that your sentiment is shared by most people.

What I am trying to address are the possible unintended consequences of laws restricting firearms in various ways. I don't believe that anyone can reasonably argue that guns are never used for legitimate defense of life. Just as I don't think that anyone and everyone should be allowed unlimited access to firearms.

My own preferences for combating crime and violence are probable just as unlikely to be seen to fruition as any of the most radical gun control laws. However, if those who favor tighter restrictions on firearms, whether modest or extreme, are unwilling to even consider that their ideas may be ineffectual, there really is no room for reasonable conversation.

JW

[rrneck]

7. What if people degend their own lives with guns? nt

[mvccd1000]

20. Re: In my view, all the property in the country is not worth a human life.

Agree 100%.

ESPECIALLY if the life being talked about is the innocent person who becomes a victim of a violent crime. That's why non-prohibited persons should not be restricted from owning tools to defend themselves.

For example, this DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x453338#453570

HOUSTON—A homeowner was gunned down in front of her daughter Tuesday night after three masked men burst into her northwest Harris County home, according to Harris County Sheriff’s deputies.
Investigators said the woman, Peggy Ariza, was home with her 17-year-old daughter and another female family friend when three men wearing ski masks knocked on, then burst through, the front door.
The 17-year-old began to scream and Ariza, who was on the second floor, ran to the stairs to investigate. That’s when one of the men opened fire, hitting the mother once in the chest.
After shooting Ariza, the men fled the scene. They were still on the loose Wednesday afternoon.

Apparently these criminals don't subscribe to your beliefs, as they were perfectly willing to trade a life for some property.

[oneshooter]

21. Even if the "property" loss was the lives of yourself and/or your family? n/t

[MicaelS]

22. Views differ

Mine is, I do think some property IS worth a human life.

Since places in this county still do not adequate mass transit, people there depend on their personal vehicles to get them to and from work. If their car or truck is stolen, and they can't afford to replace it because of insufficient insurance or money, they face losing their job because they can't get to work. We're talking working class people here, not the wealthy.

Or, the case of the independent skilled tradesman.... plumber, electrician, carpenter, appliance repairman, etc. They have a work vehicle that they use to get from job to job. It has all their tools, and equipment. They could easily have $100,000 in vehicle and tools. If that vehicle is stolen, they can't work, they can't pay their bills, buy food for their family, or keep a roof over their heads.

So what your really stating is that ordinary working class people should have to face being hungry or homeless just to preserve the life of a criminal. Then I bet you wonder why more working class people don't vote Democratic.

[X_Digger]

26. 24+ hours an no substantive response to your question.

As Click and Clack say, you've really "stumped the chumps!"

(from NPR's Car Talk - http://www.cartalk.com/ )