What is your solution to the gun debate in America

[Dari]

OK, we've argued enough. I'd like to get everyone's opinion, poll-wise, on what they think is the best way forward in this gun debate.

 

[Herr Kutz]

The obvious solution is to ban murder.

 

[Dari]

I've added the poll.

 

[thraashman]

We'd have to actually have a debate first, which conservatives are unwilling to do.

 

[Dari]

The first option is meant to mean gun legislation is in the hands of the central (federal) government and there is far less regulation than before.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm fine with them closing the gunshow loophole that allows people to sell guns privately with no background check. Don't really care if they go with magazine restrictions either even though I don't think that will do anything at all to reduce crime.

 

[Matt1970]

My solution about the gun debate is to stop debating about guns. Guns aren't the problem.

 

[jackstar7]

How about this:

The NRA, or a new competing organization, has members register all their weapons in their privately held database. Then the group voluntarily helps law enforcement when possible, and shows reports demonstrating how rarely the firearms owned by their members are used in crimes.

Both self-serving and responsible.

 

[bozack]

I'm fine with them closing the gunshow loophole that allows people to sell guns privately with no background check. Don't really care if they go with magazine restrictions either even though I don't think that will do anything at all to reduce crime.

I don't think anything they do will "fix" things in terms of gun violence or violence in general, for that we need mental heath reform

but I do feel that standardizing background checks and the wait periods regardless of purchase option would be ok....

though I feel private party sales will be difficult to regulate.

 

[Dari]

My solution about the gun debate is to stop debating about guns. Guns aren't the problem.

Access to guns are obviously the problem. Many people and governments would disagree with you. Fact is, IMHO, it's time to take states' rights away from this. Our state lines are porous and anyone can travel from one state to another. It's not the 19th century anymore where going from one town to another or carrying goods across state line took days. That makes it easier for anyone to break state laws. So, either make it extremely easy for EVERYONE to get guns or make it very difficult. This has worked for many countries.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm fine with them closing the gunshow loophole that allows people to sell guns privately with no background check. Don't really care if they go with magazine restrictions either even though I don't think that will do anything at all to reduce crime.

I'm of the same thought. If the dealers can get background checks in 30 minutes or less so could the private sellers. Have a common desk (police/ATF) where they can get a background check on a person prior to a sale for a small fee.

 

[BoberFett]

We'd have to actually have a debate first, which conservatives are unwilling to do.

People like you remind me why being "liberal" is stupid.

 

[schneiderguy]

We'd have to actually have a debate first, which conservatives are unwilling to do.

Why should they, when pretty much every "liberal" is completely ignorant about the subject?

It's like having an argument about evolution with a young earth creationist.

 

[K1052]

Require all sales to go through NICS check while limiting the fees FFL holders can charge (say $5-$10). If any dealer declines to process because they don't want the hassle then revoke their license.

Compel all states to report mental health data to NICS.

 

[Ausm]

I want to take away all the guns from the Rightwingers on this forum for a start.

 

[Dari]

Require all sales to go through NICS check while limiting the fees FFL holders can charge (say $5-$10). If any dealer declines to process because they don't want the hassle then revoke their license.

Compel all states to report mental health data to NICS.

This is all well and good for the Newtown, Lynchburg, Arizona and Aurora cases. But what about the everyday gun violence that rages in urban areas? What about the illegal trade? I'm sure many here may feel that that is not their problem since they don't live in those neighborhoods (unlike, say, Aurora or Newtown), but those places are in America and it's Americans that are dying from that violence. The economic or cultural status may be different but that should not be ignored in this debate.

 

[nextJin]

The solution is rather obvious, in order to effectively solve the problem you have two options:

1) A Federal Law requiring every household in America own a firearm of some variety. If you do not own a firearm you will be given one by the government.

1a. Any public or government lands/buildings/areas which are "Gun Free" are illegal with harsh jail time / fines if broken.

2) You ban all firearms; You can not buy, sell or own any sort of fire arm.

Pick one.

 

[nehalem256]

1a. Any public or government lands/buildings/areas which are "Gun Free" are illegal with harsh jail time / fines if broken.

I am not sure this would have any effect. The fact that "Gun Free" zones also happen to be where most shootings occur is quite possibly coincidental. Or perhaps more to the point "Gun Free" areas correlate heavily with high value mass shooting areas.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I don't think anything they do will "fix" things in terms of gun violence or violence in general, for that we need mental heath reform

but I do feel that standardizing background checks and the wait periods regardless of purchase option would be ok....

though I feel private party sales will be difficult to regulate.

I don't see how. Aren't gun owners law abiding citizens? It is the law here in CA that you must go through a licensed dealer when selling a gun private party and I have sold a gun private party in this manner.

Personally, I'd much prefer to know that the person I'm selling a gun to isn't a criminal.

 

[Dari]

I am not sure this would have any effect. The fact that "Gun Free" zones also happen to be where most shootings occur is quite possibly coincidental. Or perhaps more to the point "Gun Free" areas correlate heavily with high value mass shooting areas.

That's the point. The mass shootings may grab headlines but the everyday violence does not interrupt the president's meetings and he definitely doesn't shed tears over those that die. But they outnumber the mass shootings and are mainly the product of illegal guns, usually brought across state lines.

 

[schneiderguy]

Before we discuss adding new gun laws, we should start enforcing the ones that are already on the books.

A large (possibly the largest, IIRC) source of guns used in crimes come from straw purchases, where a prohibited person (a felon) has his girlfriend/"baby momma" buy a gun for him. This is illegal under federal law.

Unfortunately prosecuting single moms is not good for publicity, so the ATF and local law enforcement don't charge these people with crimes even though they are aware of the practice. Linked post is from a head lawyer at the Calguns Foundation, if anyone doubts its validity.

 

[K1052]

This is all well and good for the Newtown, Lynchburg, Arizona and Aurora cases. But what about the everyday gun violence that rages in urban areas? What about the illegal trade? I'm sure many here may feel that that is not their problem since they don't live in those neighborhoods (unlike, say, Aurora or Newtown), but those places are in America and it's Americans that are dying from that violence. The economic or cultural status may be different but that should not be ignored in this debate.

Repeal drug prohibition for starters, something I have long been in favor of.

 

[K1052]

Before we discuss adding new gun laws, we should start enforcing the ones that are already on the books.

A large (possibly the largest, IIRC) source of guns used in crimes come from straw purchases, where a prohibited person (a felon) has his girlfriend/"baby momma" buy a gun for him. This is illegal under federal law.

Unfortunately prosecuting single moms is not good for publicity, so the ATF and local law enforcement don't charge these people with crimes even though they are aware of the practice. Linked post is from a head lawyer at the Calguns Foundation, if anyone doubts its validity.

I'd add this to my list. Seveer punishment for straw purchasers should be required.

 

[Anarchist420]

I support the Articles of Confederation. Even though it's not perfect, it's not too bad for legislation.

 

[schneiderguy]

I don't see how. Aren't gun owners law abiding citizens? It is the law here in CA that you must go through a licensed dealer when selling a gun private party and I have sold a gun private party in this manner.

Personally, I'd much prefer to know that the person I'm selling a gun to isn't a criminal.

I would be fine with mandating background checks for all purchases if:

1. Limit on fees charged to transfer (capped at $10 in CA, this is fine).
2. No more waiting period for purchases. The background check is instant, the waiting period no longer serves any purpose.
3. Strict limits on what will trigger a background check failure. Violent felonies or previous mental illness bad enough to send you to the loony bin only. No prohibiting misdemeanors (as current law provides for) or "you want to own a gun therefore you are mentally ill" as some "liberals" believe.

This way both sides get something they want. Note to "liberals": saying "we're going to do x, y, and z to infringe upon your rights; be happy that we're not taking them all away" is not a compromise.