Gun Control in America

[Darth Wong]

No, they got the guns by convincing someone else to buy them for them, who was 18 without a criminal record. Background checks still must be done by FFL holders, which are the only people allowed to sell guns for a profit.

Was this other individual charged with anything? If you help someone illegally buy cigarettes or alcohol where I live, you can be charged with a criminal offense. The same should hold true for guns, but I don't know how that works in the US.

[Beowulf]

No, they got the guns by convincing someone else to buy them for them, who was 18 without a criminal record. Background checks still must be done by FFL holders, which are the only people allowed to sell guns for a profit.

Was this other individual charged with anything? If you help someone illegally buy cigarettes or alcohol where I live, you can be charged with a criminal offense. The same should hold true for guns, but I don't know how that works in the US.

Don't recall, but strawman sales definitely are illegal.

*looks through wikipedia*

The buyer of the rifle and shotguns didn't get charged, but the two individuals who supplied the handguns did, and were convicted.

[Darth Wong]

So by your logic, people should get driver's licenses for nothing, and the police should be forced to prove that they're BAD drivers before restricting their driving privileges?

The counter-argument there (from a legal standpoint) would probably be that driving is a privilege, while gun ownership is a right which is outlined in the Constitution.

Even Constitutional rights are still subject to regulation and limitation. Besides, the disruption to the average person's life from losing his ability to drive would be far, far worse than the disruption caused by the loss of gun ownership.

[Broomstick]

The psych testing is a little problematic - how do you decide who is too crazy to own a gun? How do you know the normal guy in front of you today won't go off his rocker 10 years down the road? Now, if you HAVE a mental illness or history of same you can't legally own a gun, even in gun-friendly Indiana, but I question just how effective psych screening is before overt symptoms appear.

I would say that anybody with a history of truancy from school or a criminal record more serious than speeding tickets should not be allowed to own a gun, for starters.

In most states and locatlities where I'm aware of the laws, it's usually anyone convincted of a felony, usually defined as something that calls for one year or more in jail.

With guns we'd have the same issue - no matter WHAT answer I could give to the "why do I want to own a gun" question there are a large number of people in this country who will say that, as a civilian there is NO reason good enough for me to own a gun. Sport shooting? How barbaric, like boxing, not worth the safety risk, there are other sports I could take up. Hunting? How barbaric, buy my meat in the supermarket just like everyone else. Protection? That's what the police are for. There's no arguing with these people.

This is the "there are extremists on the other side, therefore we cannot brook any compromise whatsoever!" argument. It is nothing more than a variation upon the black/white fallacy: using extremists on the other side in order to justify an extreme position on your side.

Wong, I might even agree with your stance on that EXCEPT I live right next door the city of Chicago that has exactly that stance. In this area it is NOT a hypothetical situation, it is a fact as soon as you cross the line into the city of Chicago. The law in that city is that a civilian can NOT own a handgun under any circumstances. Even security guards are not permitted to carry a gun, by law. So the guys who patrol the grounds around O'Hare airport carry no weapons, despite being Mayor Daley's "first line of defense" against terorrist saboteurs. When, just after 9/11, they had national guardsmen patroling O'Hare and Midway airports the city insisted they carry no ammo. Why the fuck have people patrolling in khaki with rifles if they aren't allowed to carry bullets? Fucking window dressing is what it was. It was a "safety issue" - can't have trained professionals carrying loaded guns about. Even if they are the National Guard - so I guess it more than just civilians, now that I think about it.

In this case, the extremists are real and they live quite close to me. They've disarmed a city of 3 million people. NOW they are filing lawsuits against lawful and law-abiding businesses in my home state for the express purposes of shutting them down. Dictator Daley has stated in public that he fully intends to disarm northern Indiana. Excuse me? He's a fucking mayor of a city in Illinois - he has no business meddling in Indiana, certainly no legal or politcal authority to do so. Which is why his first round of lawsuits were thrown out of Federal Court

Also, you are assuming my personal position is extreme - I wasn't giving my position, I was giving reasons why I thought the OP's idea wouldn't work. T'ain't necessarially the same thing. I actually think the part of having a discrete gun license that you are required to earn rather than simply being issued after an exchange of money has some merit. I think the system proposed in the OP is overly complex - maybe three categories, one for hunting weapons, one for target/sport shooting, and one for gun ownership for personal protection (which might include folks carrying as bodyguards as well as folks carrying for their own selves). Unless someone can think up another broad category of gun ownership, I think that covers most folks with legitimate reasons. Each category would place the emphasis on gun use and safety for the intended purpose of ownership.

ALL firearms must be kept in a secure gunsafe at all times unless IN USE. Having a firearm outside of a secure gunsafe when it is not in use is a slightly more minor offense.

So... when I drive to the shooting range I have to put the gun safe in the back of my pickup? That's a little inconvenient.

That's exactly the way it's done in Canada and the way it's been for many years (since well before the contentious gun registration bill came into effect), and no one complains about it. Frankly, your argument is looking pretty weak when you start objecting to restrictions based on "inconvenience".

Well, it IS a little inconvenient compared to simply putting guncases in the back of the truck. Most of the gunsafes I've seen I was not able to physically lift, which in my case would mean either permanently installing one in the back of the truck or, essentially, you prevent me from going to the range. Unless what qualifies for the term "gun safe" is different in Canada than the US. If it's not that heavy and solid a casing I question how "safe" you're keeping the guns.

I'd be willing to go with "secured and unable to cause harm" - such as my hunter friends who transport their rifles partially disassembled so it is impossible for them to fire under any circumstance.

Some sort of locking container that is required to be locked in transit and must be carried in the rear of the vehicle (somewhat like the rules on bottles of liquor - nothing open up front) might indeed be a workable compromise. I'm back and forth on the idea of distinctive coloration - the police would probably like that, as a flag that there are weapons on board, but it might also attract thieves. One of the best defenses against thieves is simply to never let anyone know you possess a valuable, and that applies to guns as well anything else.

But if you have a gun for protection, keeping it locked up most of the time defeats the main purpose for having it. A protection gun needs to be at hand to do its job.

And of course, it is most likely to be involved in accidents that way.

Yes, quite true. But there are cirucmstances where there is an acceptable balance of risk and benefits.

A woman fleeing a stalker psycho boyfriend/ex-husband who is on her own and without children might be one such instance. A gun is certainly a more certain defense than a "writ of protection" - paper doesn't stop bullets nor does it discourage the determined guy who is willing to risk a murder rap to get "his woman" back dead or alive. Writ of protection? Bullshit. If he's close enough for her to shoot, he's too close. Of course, you'd have to train such a woman in proper use of a gun (if she didn't already know) and there are issues with that train of reasoning -- but it is a situation where a 24/7 carry and at the ready might be justifiable.

There are disabled people who are physically unable to either flee or fight back, but can safely operate a gun. Shouldn't they have the option to defend themselves?

Why is the burden on me to prove I"m responsible? Shouldn't it be on YOU to prove that I am NOT? Your system presupposes irresponsibility, which must be disproven, which rubs against the "innocent until proven guilty" meme in the US.

So by your logic, people should get driver's licenses for nothing, and the police should be forced to prove that they're BAD drivers before restricting their driving privileges?

No, not quite my argument.

First of all, I don't have a problem with the requirement to prove your identity and allow access to police/court records. That's how we filter out the criminals. But the supposition in Indiana is that if don't have a criminal record and you don't have a psych record your a normal, law-abiding citizen and you can own a gun. Or several guns. We view it as something normal people can handle responsibly.

As for the driving - if you pass your driver's test, yes, you get your license. And you keep your license unless, yes, you are proved to be a bad driver. Yeah, we force the police to prove someone is a bad driver before we restrict or remove their privileges.

So, to us here in the fine state of Indiana, that IS the normal state of affairs and the vast majority of us are satisfied with it. We aren't convinced that taking away everyone's guns, or severely restricting them, is going to make our part of the world a better place. True, we do have bad drivers and bad gun owners... but we don't see that as a reason to remove the privilege for the responsible majority. I mean, we have bad parents, too - that doesn't mean we want to require parental licensing. severe penalities for unlicensed sexual activity, and forcible abortions for unlicensed pregnancies.

Making something harder to obtain DOES restrict access. Making something more expensive DOES restrict access. It doesn't restrict the item in the same way as banning it would, but it does restrict it.

Ooooooohhh, let me get my violin so I can play the sad music that should accompany this whining.

Be sarcastic as you want Wong, it doesn't make it less true - everytime you raise the price on something and make it harder to obtain it does restrict access. Why would a world where rich people can have guns because they can afford them and poor people can't because they don't have enough money be a better place? Or do you argue that the poor are inherently irresponsible?

Raising taxes and fees is a long-standing way to keep "undesirables" out - poll taxes were used for nearly a hundred years to keep blacks from voting in the American south and it was quite effective. But was it OK? They weren't denied the vote, they just had to pay for the privilege... nevermind few had the money to spare.

No doubt Canada is a different place with a different history - but the OP wasn't talking about what works in Canada or the UK or Australia, it was talking about the US. And if you were to propose such legislation it would be folly to ignore the social and cultural factors - which is why my parting line in my first post here was that I didn't think it was feasible in the US, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea.

[aerius]

Well, it IS a little inconvenient compared to simply putting guncases in the back of the truck. Most of the gunsafes I've seen I was not able to physically lift, which in my case would mean either permanently installing one in the back of the truck or, essentially, you prevent me from going to the range. Unless what qualifies for the term "gun safe" is different in Canada than the US. If it's not that heavy and solid a casing I question how "safe" you're keeping the guns.

Basically what we refer to as a "gunsafe" for transporting guns in vehicles is what you guys would call a locking gun case. Generally it's a light metal box with a keylock in which the gun is stored, more or less a metal Haliburton case for handguns and a longer version for rifles & shotguns.

And no, they don't really keep guns safe, it just keeps them from being immediately useable. Anyone with a Dremel tool can open up the case within 10-15 minutes at most.

[Broomstick]

Ah, so the purpose is safety and not theft prevention? Then no, not so inconvenient. Pardon, tripped up by the pitfalls of a common language again.

I am concerned with guns falling into the wrong hands - criminals and psychos. Much of the crime committed with guns is committed with stolen or otherwise illegal weapons. In an ideal world (yes, I can hear the laughing from the audience) you'd want a system to keep weapons of any sort out of the hands of dangerous people, yet allow responsible adults to have access to them.