Gun control strategy that satisfies both sides

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Hitops, Oct 14, 2011.

  1. Hitops

    Hitops New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's my idea for gun control that I believe should be satisfactory to both those who believe citizens should have free access to firearms, and also those who believe we should reduce firearms in our society:

    First step is to allow wide ranging freedom for ownership and transportation of guns, including concealed carry. The laws governing the purchase of weapons should be very strict. Second step is to ban the manufacturing of all handguns guns except for police. Whenever guns are confiscated by police, they are destroyed. Those would be almost exclusively guns confiscated from those with criminal records or without permits.

    Over time, with no more high-qualify guns in production, the overall supply will decline. However the proportion of guns in the hands of 'good' people vs 'bad' people will increase, since the bad people have no further supply of new guns when they lose or break them, but the good people are allowed free access and are no risk of losing their own weapons. Eventually the price of guns will increase by normal market forces, further favoring ownership by 'good' people and making it more difficult for a typical poor-ass hoodlum to get them. Over time, there would be fewer and fewer functional concealable firearms, all the time shifting the balance in favor of the 'good' people. Eventually, with overall very low handgun prevalence, only those with long guns would have many weapons. This again favors the home defender or the hunter rather than the thug.

    Of course black market will play a role. But homemade guns are poor quality, would still be subject to seizure, and cannot possibly keep up with the criminal demand that the major manufacturers can. Overall, the balance would be shifted in the right direction. It's not perfect, but given the existence of the second amendment, is there a better idea?
     
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    25,465
    Likes Received:
    3,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Well as somebody who believes citizens should have free access to firearms, I disagree wholeheartedly with all of the above after this sentence:


    The rest of it is crap. It assumes that criminals don't steal weapons from legitimate gun owners. Basically, under your inanity, if I own say a single 9mm handgun. It gets stolen from me. I never can be armed again with a handgun. It also makes an assumption that rich=good, poor-bad. We all know that's not always true.

    Here's what I have for a compromise:

    1) Keep current NICS check for gun buying. Have a provision that allows private gun owners to use the NICS system for a nominal fee ($5) on a limited basis (10 checks a year). If they transfer gun to a person without using NICS (and the person would have failed the NICS check), the seller is guilty of a federal felony. This would make it so that I could sell a gun to my best friend (who has a high level security clearance) or relative without having a NICS check, but would make it a crime for me to sell to a criminal.

    2) Have a minimum standard for CCW permits that would be usable nationwide. That standard would be FL's current standard (fingerprinting/background check/minimal training required). States could require less stringent measures for an in-state CCW. (i.e. Alaska's no CCW needed).

    3) Draconian punishment of violent crimes committed with a gun in possession. At the minimum, use FL's 10-20-Life program.
     
    SpotsCat and (deleted member) like this.
  3. Hitops

    Hitops New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, under your inanity you read it wrong I suppose. You would still be able to buy from the available supply, just not from a brand new supply. It would be easier for you to obtain another gun than for a criminal to do so who's gun was stolen from him. One could modify this and say that confiscated guns are not destroyed, but go back on the legal market so authorized folks could purchase them. The decline over time would rely on guns breaking down over time, and still shift the supply into the right hands.

    What it assumes is that people who are more responsible with their money, will be more able to afford a weapon. People who are more responsible with money are often more responsible in other areas as well. Those are the people you want to have the weapons.

    I don't disagree with the 1 and 2, I just think they would make very little difference. Current law already has those kinds checks in place or similar, and it does very little to prevent criminals from getting guns. Ultimately, only the overall supply of guns affects whether criminals get guns, just like the overall supply of coke is the primary factor in how many people use coke, despite laws.

    For number 3 I agree.

    For guns to decrease in the hands of criminals, the overall supply of guns must decrease. There is no other way. In OECD nations where the government has succeeded in reducing the supply of handguns, there are very few handguns in the hands of criminals, and very few murders. This is why I propose a system which shifts a dwindling supply of weapons into the right hands. All your suggestions could simply be added to my system, there is no reason they would conflict with it.
     
  4. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,402
    Likes Received:
    1,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once there is some nationwide ban on guns they will pour into the country from all sides, just like narcotics do now. They will be towed in submersibles behind fishing boats, hauled in from tunnels, or transported in by foot, air, or vehicles by illegals.

    One city or state can have a ban on weapons, and they will still get in. Look at Washington DC and see how well their gun laws worked out.

    Guns can also be manufactured in machine shops, just like cocaine is prepared in workshops all over Columbia.

    Draconian punishment is the only answer. All repeat violent felons should be automatically executed after at least their third or greater violent felony conviction. Does not matter if they used a gun, knife, chainsaw, or their bare hands.
     
  5. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about lets just allow handguns and go from there?

    I would hate to think I wouldn't be able to replace my semi-custom M&P45.
     
  6. perdidochas

    perdidochas Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    25,465
    Likes Received:
    3,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Under your system, the price of guns would skyrocket. There is no way I could ever replace a decent handgun. A modern handgun is the best instrument for self defense ever invented. You are suggesting a slow ban of them.


    I disagree. I've met a lot of rich people who are the last people I want armed. I've also met poor people I don't want armed. I think that is a bad assumption.


    Yet crime rates are decreasing, DESPITE a bad economy. Those checks are working, as they are little to no interference to law abiding citizens. Sure, they won't stop criminals from getting guns. Nothing can.

    The murder rate is lower than it has been since the early 1960s. Our other violent crime rates are also getting lower (total violent crime rate is lower than it's been since early 1970s). Regardless of what the media is portraying, our country is actually getting calmer, despite the fact that gun control has lessened. Gun control has no effect on crime. It just interferes with law abiding citizens.

    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
     
  7. greatgeezer

    greatgeezer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    What are you smoking? Give the antigunners an inch and they'll take 10 miles! I say make full auto manufacture for civilian use legal again. Supressors, no restrictions at all. That said, I won't own full auto because it wastes ammo, but that's me. I wanna hit what I aim at, and I don't aim unless it's gonna kill me, or I want to eat it. 1 round will do for the most part.
     
  8. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    20,764
    Likes Received:
    2,879
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does your plan compensate shareholders and employees of gun companies if you intend to prohibit them from manufacturing their product?
     
  9. Pokerface

    Pokerface New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What will work is allow people to get guns without the govt sticking there noses in it other than a quick back ground check for felonies. No laws other than this. Allow lethal force to be used defending property as well. An armed society is a feared society. Criminals dont attack people if they think they are armed. They will hit the unarmed first.
     
  10. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, actually they hit the armed first, it makes more sense to kill the threat rather than an unarmed bystander.

    Hence the reason for me being at a loss as to why someone would actually open carry in a public place for the sake of "self-defense".
     
  11. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, no. With the Heller vs. DC decision the notion of them taking ten miles is far fetched.

    As for the other bits, I don't see a reason why Class III items should be so readily available, I haven't a problem with the Class III permitting system. They are quite a few uses for a sound suppressor, few for an automatic firearm.
     
  12. Hitops

    Hitops New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Guns are not like drugs, there is no addictive component driving demands. The addictive component drives an irrational, desperate demand. Guns are not like that, law-abiding people are making rational decisions on buying them just like other things.

    Regardless, we already have proof that laws do make a difference, and that they do not pour in. Example the closest neighbor, Canada, who has relatively strict handgun controls, does not have massive smuggling of weaspons, nor mass black-market production of them.
    Well firstly Washington has a higher percentage of blacks which makes a huge difference. And secondly this is exactly where gun supply would make a difference.
    But again the proof is that this not happening to any large extent in countries which restrict supply. The theory does not work that way in reality where it has been tried.
    I totally agree with executions for murderers. However that would could also compliment supply-side restrictions.
     
  13. Hitops

    Hitops New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes and that's the point. The price would go up gradually, as guns break down. SES is highly correlated to criminal activity. Eventually the threat from guns would go down, and so the lesser decline in law-abiding owership would not be as significant. You are also forgetting that this would not affect long guns, which any homeowner could still use for protection. Criminals rarely use long guns because they cannot be hidden easily. If we end up with long guns in every home, and very few handguns in the streets, we end up with a lot less crime. In nations with that situation, that is the result.

    No system can ever be perfect. But regardless of personal experience, income levels directly correlate to criminal activity as a fact. Also don't forget that the price would increase more for illegal buyers than legal, because of the inherent increased costs in illegal transactions.

    The way it would work is that at first prices would go up, supply would go down. Guns would shift into the hands of two groups - those who have no criminal record and those who can afford them. Those groups have huge overlap. The people who are poor, and with a criminal record will have the hardest time - and those are the people responsible for the vast majority of murders.

    Reduced supply can, as it does it nations with tight supply.
    All forms of crime have decreased, including those which have nothing to do with guns. So the checks are not necessarily the biggest factor even though I share your opinion that they probably make some difference.
     
  14. perdidochas

    perdidochas Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    25,465
    Likes Received:
    3,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are no nations in that situation.

    The thing is, if that happens, criminals in the U.S. will become much more lethal. Sawed off shotguns are much more lethal than are typical handguns.


    Not when it comes to stolen goods.

    Proof of that contention.



    My main point is that besides the checks, guns have become liberalized--i.e. easier to get. Our crime rates are decreasing despite the fact that the AWB law expired, and that more states are allowing concealed carry with fairly simple provisions. If that is the case, what is the need for decreasing handgun ownership? The gun supply in this country has been rapidly going up. Our crime rate has been going down. I'm not going to make the specious claim that more guns=less crime, but without a doubt, more guns does not equal more crime.
     
  15. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0




    Interesting bit of duplicity there, friend. You accuse others of taking "10 miles" and then you propose to further weaken our already weak gun laws in this country.

    Are you being consistent?
     
  16. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Interesting argument. I hadn't considered that.
     
  17. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those who open carry will be the first to go, along with the security guards.

    For the sake of self-defense, concealed carry is ideal. I will open carry once in a while, that is usually reserved for trips to or from the range. I don't view open carry for a means of self-defense as being viable.
     
  18. Hitops

    Hitops New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are plenty of nations in that situation, such as Canada and most western European nations. Additionally in the US studies have demonstrated that handgun ownership highly correlates to murder rates, such as the study by Miller in 2002 Am J of Public Health. Supply of weapons goes in hand with killings. It's kind of common sense. It's why we give soldiers guns and not just bad attitudes.
    But criminals don't choose to use those by and large, because they are harder to conceal. They by far prefer handguns, according to the published numbers. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state) The reduction in handgun prevalence would far outweigh the increased lethality of other weapons.
    For some things yes, for most no. When something is harder to obtain, or you have reduced options because you are not authorized to buy, there is a premium on purchasing to balance those risks. This is common sense but don't take my word for it, the NYPD rediscovered this fact a few years ago:
    http://www.nysun.com/new-york/price-of-illegal-guns-soaring-here-in-wake/42677/

    You can't prove future events.

    You missed the point that ALL crimes have gone down, not only those associated with gun violence. That points to other, larger factors.

    Gun prevalence can result in 1) improved ability to defend oneself and 2) improved ability of an assailant to kill you. Number 2 increases faster and greater than number 1 however, when the question has been looked at. Mass liberalization of weapons is not a long-term solution, its short-sighted. Reduction of overall gun prevalence is more effective in decreasing murders. Ideally we want to get the guns into the hands of the right people. You can never accomplish this without diminishing the supply.
     
  19. perdidochas

    perdidochas Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    25,465
    Likes Received:
    3,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Handguns are still very legal in Canada. Yes, those of certain calibers (.25 and .32) as well as those with under 4.1inch barrel are prohibited, but other than that they aren't hard to get.


    If your scheme were to come about, U.S. criminals would start sawing off shotguns.


    I was asking for proof that poor people commit most murders.



    If crime is going down, there is no need to further restrict guns. The only possible argument for restricting guns is crime. If crime is decreasing, there is no need to change the laws regarding them. I have a libertarian bent. My basic idea is that if a law isn't absolutely necessary, it shouldn't be passed. If crime is decreasing, then the major argument for restricting guns further is destroyed. Murder is decreasing, while population (and number of guns) is increasing. Hence, there is no need to further restrict guns.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    35,683
    Likes Received:
    1,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Falling crime is not necessarily a sign that we have optimal gun control. There are obviously multiple variables that impact on crime. The appropriate remark would be 'isolating gun effects, if crime isn't falling with gun control then..."
     
    dagosa likes this.
  21. perdidochas

    perdidochas Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    25,465
    Likes Received:
    3,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The point is, crime is decreasing. There is no need to further control guns for that reason.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    35,683
    Likes Received:
    1,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point is, you haven't isolated gun effects. Gun control could lead to fewer crime victims
     
  23. perdidochas

    perdidochas Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    25,465
    Likes Received:
    3,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no need to examine it. Crime is under control.
     
  24. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I commend you for your attempt to be fair, however I feel your ideas are fundamentally flawed on several important levels. The first level you mentioned is not too flawed however, there are already thousands of gun laws on the books when local ordinances are taken into account. So, I feel that purchase laws are already too strict but its one of the few area that I may be inclined to negotiate, especially obvious loopholes. Secondly, banning manufacture of hand guns is a very bad idea, not only for jobs lost but for factories lost! Additionally there are thousands of other outlets for handguns worldwide. Lastly but still important it’s an encroachment on the freedoms of pro firearm types, and with the number of pre 1900 firearms still in very good condition the availability of good pre-ban handguns would be huge, those weapons are like Harley Davidson’s, rebuild able practically forever!

    In sum up, black market hand guns range from Saturday night specials to $ 3000.00 + Customs, so they are not hand made or homemade, save for prison ’zip guns’. Bans have been tried and have failed. I feel the best options is to simply follow the USA’s Constitution, cut the red tape, clean up the old laws on the books make all types of handguns and all types weapons available to law abiding citizens as per the Constitution of the United States allows. Strictly enforce the laws that are left. Lastly ban all gun control activities and jail those that violate the ban. Ha ha ha, if that is accomplished I promise I will visit the usual suspects in prison!

    Rev A
     
  25. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh trade your freedom and rights for a little saftey eh? All I have to say to that is this quote ; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".:-D Benjamin Franklin. Franklin thought this so important he created another variant of it published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

    Rev A
     

Share This Page