What Can Gun Control Compromise Look Like?

[GannonFan]

We're having the debate now - now is exactly when someone's views and preconceptions can be challenged and formented and developed. If you're measuring change by years then we'll never get there. Too many things to discuss and move on to get stuck on a fixed position for years just because you don't want to admit your first idea isn't perfect.

You're spitballing ideas but stating them in a way that makes it sound like you've actually thought them out and are firm in your conviction.

I have thought them out and generally am firm in my conviction, but will certainly be open to reevaluate that conviction when presented with information that contradicts those convictions. I'm very open minded.

[CID1990]

It just occurred to be that my chances of dying in a church shooting and dying in a Chicago gangland shooting are exactly the same

0%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Food for thought in the gun control debate.

Did you notice whose screw-up enabled the Texas massacre?

In the case of the deaths of 26 people at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, the federal government — the same sprawling, bureaucratic behemoth that die-hard gun control advocates insist we trust with every element of our personal safety — screwed up big time.

[Col Hogan]

The Boston Globe has finally dropped the Progressive charade that “no one wants to take your guns”...That has always been the end-State desire of liberals, but they have long held that they can get to that position through the constant drum of “common-sense” gun laws that constantly move a little closer to their utopian gun-free society...

The curtain is starting to rise, and the desire to confiscate law-abiding citizens property is now openly on the table...

Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/1 ... story.html

[GannonFan]

The Boston Globe has finally dropped the Progressive charade that “no one wants to take your guns”...That has always been the end-State desire of liberals, but they have long held that they can get to that position through the constant drum of “common-sense” gun laws that constantly move a little closer to their utopian gun-free society...

The curtain is starting to rise, and the desire to confiscate law-abiding citizens property is now openly on the table...

Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/1 ... story.html

Has anyone ever really doubted that the position of many people on the left was to move for full confiscation and banning of all guns? Of course that's their position, they're as anti-gun as some people on the right are pro-guns with zero restrictions. That's why there has to be some type of compromise between banning all guns and doing nothing about gun proliferation/abuse. I don't think there's any value in banning any guns past where we are now, where fully automatics are not allowed. A handgun today can be just as deadly, including in a mass shooting, as any other gun. The biggest things for me are closing the gaping loopholes in background checks (a full 20% plus of transfers/sales don't get background checks) and then fixing the system itself to work correctly so that we're getting a true and accurate background check, not the disaster that the Air Force showed in this recent tragedy.

[89Hen]

Has anyone ever really doubted that the position of many people on the left was to move for full confiscation and banning of all guns?

Most on the left try to pretend that isn't the case.

[GannonFan]

Has anyone ever really doubted that the position of many people on the left was to move for full confiscation and banning of all guns?

Most on the left try to pretend that isn't the case.

But when you actually have a discussion with any of them it invariably steers towards why are guns like AR-15's even available, why does any one person need to have so many guns, and why can other countries ban guns and not us? And to that the answer will always be the 2nd amendment, which will never, never be repealed. That's why if we're going to do anything other than make political hay over mass shootings or just gun violence as a whole, there are things we can constructively do to improve the situation. Unfortunately, most people prefer to play politics rather than solve anything.

[Col Hogan]

The Boston Globe has finally dropped the Progressive charade that “no one wants to take your guns”...That has always been the end-State desire of liberals, but they have long held that they can get to that position through the constant drum of “common-sense” gun laws that constantly move a little closer to their utopian gun-free society...

The curtain is starting to rise, and the desire to confiscate law-abiding citizens property is now openly on the table...



http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/1 ... story.html

Has anyone ever really doubted that the position of many people on the left was to move for full confiscation and banning of all guns? Of course that's their position, they're as anti-gun as some people on the right are pro-guns with zero restrictions. That's why there has to be some type of compromise between banning all guns and doing nothing about gun proliferation/abuse. I don't think there's any value in banning any guns past where we are now, where fully automatics are not allowed. A handgun today can be just as deadly, including in a mass shooting, as any other gun. The biggest things for me are closing the gaping loopholes in background checks (a full 20% plus of transfers/sales don't get background checks) and then fixing the system itself to work correctly so that we're getting a true and accurate background check, not the disaster that the Air Force showed in this recent tragedy.

Can you source your “a full 20% plus...” claim???

[GannonFan]

Has anyone ever really doubted that the position of many people on the left was to move for full confiscation and banning of all guns? Of course that's their position, they're as anti-gun as some people on the right are pro-guns with zero restrictions. That's why there has to be some type of compromise between banning all guns and doing nothing about gun proliferation/abuse. I don't think there's any value in banning any guns past where we are now, where fully automatics are not allowed. A handgun today can be just as deadly, including in a mass shooting, as any other gun. The biggest things for me are closing the gaping loopholes in background checks (a full 20% plus of transfers/sales don't get background checks) and then fixing the system itself to work correctly so that we're getting a true and accurate background check, not the disaster that the Air Force showed in this recent tragedy.

Can you source your “a full 20% plus...” claim???

Here's one - it's not the one I saw it in originally (think it might have been a NYT article - I think it was the article that Steve Kerr was referring to when he was asked by the media about it, hence why I saw it there), but this one I just pulled up doing a quick Google search references the same Harvard/Northeastern study that says 22% of gun purchases are done without a background check. Since this is the Guardian, it focuses on using the study to show that the left has been way overestimating the percentage (Clinton said more than 40% in the election where JSO fell in love with her), but it would appear to be a pretty good number. IMO, no reason why that shouldn't be as close to zero as we can get it, and that's what we should be working on, left and right.

Just 22% of current gun owners who acquired a firearm within the past two years did so without a background check, according to a new national survey by public health researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities shared in advance with the Trace and the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ecks-study

[Col Hogan]

Well, the 40% figure has long been shot down, by such liberal sources as the Washington Post and Polifacts

That statistic was already questionable, but by now it’s been definitively overtaken by a new study. The author of the old paper points to the paper published in January as the best estimate available, and it came up with a figure of 22 percent — just over half the percentage in the long-standing talking point. We rate the statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... w-data-sa/

So, the 22 per cent figure is now the go-to for anti-gunners...except...

The study doesn’t reveal how many of those 22 percent of non-NICS firearms transactions were gifts or inheritances, or how many were sold to relatives of friends of the original owner.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/0 ... ared-dead/

So, as we get more facts, the number comes down...I’d guess its a bit lower than 22%

[89Hen]

Most on the left try to pretend that isn't the case.

But when you actually have a discussion with any of them it invariably steers towards why are guns like AR-15's even available, why does any one person need to have so many guns, and why can other countries ban guns and not us? And to that the answer will always be the 2nd amendment, which will never, never be repealed. That's why if we're going to do anything other than make political hay over mass shootings or just gun violence as a whole, there are things we can constructively do to improve the situation. Unfortunately, most people prefer to play politics rather than solve anything.

Any measure to restrict guns is not going to have the desired impact. It's a feel good.

[GannonFan]

Well, the 40% figure has long been shot down, by such liberal sources as the Washington Post and Polifacts

That statistic was already questionable, but by now it’s been definitively overtaken by a new study. The author of the old paper points to the paper published in January as the best estimate available, and it came up with a figure of 22 percent — just over half the percentage in the long-standing talking point. We rate the statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... w-data-sa/

So, the 22 per cent figure is now the go-to for anti-gunners...except...

The study doesn’t reveal how many of those 22 percent of non-NICS firearms transactions were gifts or inheritances, or how many were sold to relatives of friends of the original owner.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/0 ... ared-dead/

So, as we get more facts, the number comes down...I’d guess its a bit lower than 22%

I've always said that it's purchases/transfers that should all require background checks. Just because you're "friends" with someone you're selling a gun to doesn't mean the person you're selling it to should or is allowed to have a gun. It's too big of a loophole to leave open. Heck, a simple straw purchase by someone would be allowed under the "gifting" provision of not doing a background check. Background checks are easy, and you already get them everywhere now anyway (can't be a volunteer or chaperone at a school without one, can't have any official role in a youth sport without one, can't get a job without one) so I don't understand the angst of getting one.

[GannonFan]

But when you actually have a discussion with any of them it invariably steers towards why are guns like AR-15's even available, why does any one person need to have so many guns, and why can other countries ban guns and not us? And to that the answer will always be the 2nd amendment, which will never, never be repealed. That's why if we're going to do anything other than make political hay over mass shootings or just gun violence as a whole, there are things we can constructively do to improve the situation. Unfortunately, most people prefer to play politics rather than solve anything.

Any measure to restrict guns is not going to have the desired impact. It's a feel good.

If you make guns hard to get for people that shouldn't have them (felons, mentally ill, etc) then there is some positive impact. It's not a panacea to all gun violence, but it's also not something that is devoid of some impact.

[89Hen]

Any measure to restrict guns is not going to have the desired impact. It's a feel good.

If you make guns hard to get for people that shouldn't have them (felons, mentally ill, etc) then there is some positive impact. It's not a panacea to all gun violence, but it's also not something that is devoid of some impact.

Because they'd have to work harder to get them? Feel good.

[GannonFan]

If you make guns hard to get for people that shouldn't have them (felons, mentally ill, etc) then there is some positive impact. It's not a panacea to all gun violence, but it's also not something that is devoid of some impact.

Because they'd have to work harder to get them? Feel good.

And because some won't get them. The kid at Va Tech wasn't likely to find some black market source to buy a gun, but he got one without even having to think about it because he wasn't blocked despite his mental illness diagnosis. How many would be blocked if they had to get a background check? Surely more than one, and likely more than that. Certainly not a guarantee that all would be blocked, but enough to make a tangible difference and therefore be more practical than just feel good.

[Col Hogan]

Because they'd have to work harder to get them? Feel good.

And because some won't get them. The kid at Va Tech wasn't likely to find some black market source to buy a gun, but he got one without even having to think about it because he wasn't blocked despite his mental illness diagnosis. How many would be blocked if they had to get a background check? Surely more than one, and likely more than that. Certainly not a guarantee that all would be blocked, but enough to make a tangible difference and therefore be more practical than just feel good.

How about this...enforce the laws on the books, then tell me you think more is needed...

When you fill out a 4473 (the BATFE form a potential Gun buyer fills out to get a background check) you have to certify, under penalty of law, that the information is true...

Several thousand rejections come in each year, but there is practically no prosecution...one federal prosecutor said it’s not a “sexy enough crime” for him to expend energy on...

Straw purchases are suppose to get you up to 10 years in prison...a recent straw purchase prosecution in Omaha got the buyer probation...the person she bought the Gun for was a known felon, and he used the gun to kill a cop...

Get the states and federal government ( I’m looking at you DoD) to submit all the info that the FBI needs to properly populate the NICS system...

Until then, no new laws...edicts...NOTHING...

I think that is more than a fair, common-sense request...

[GannonFan]

And because some won't get them. The kid at Va Tech wasn't likely to find some black market source to buy a gun, but he got one without even having to think about it because he wasn't blocked despite his mental illness diagnosis. How many would be blocked if they had to get a background check? Surely more than one, and likely more than that. Certainly not a guarantee that all would be blocked, but enough to make a tangible difference and therefore be more practical than just feel good.

How about this...enforce the laws on the books, then tell me you think more is needed...

When you fill out a 4473 (the BATFE form a potential Gun buyer fills out to get a background check) you have to certify, under penalty of law, that the information is true...

Several thousand rejections come in each year, but there is practically no prosecution...one federal prosecutor said it’s not a “sexy enough crime” for him to expend energy on...

Straw purchases are suppose to get you up to 10 years in prison...a recent straw purchase prosecution in Omaha got the buyer probation...the person she bought the Gun for was a known felon, and he used the gun to kill a cop...

Get the states and federal government ( I’m looking at you DoD) to submit all the info that the FBI needs to properly populate the NICS system...

Until then, no new laws...edicts...NOTHING...

I think that is more than a fair, common-sense request...

I think that's great, and a good compromise. I don't hear gun owners really pushing to have the 4473's filled out and audited, and if not done right then prosecuted, but I think that's a great idea. Same with known straw purchases. And on the other side of the argument some push for the state and federal agencies to actually get information into the NICS. I like it.

[CID1990]

Well, the 40% figure has long been shot down, by such liberal sources as the Washington Post and Polifacts



http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... w-data-sa/

So, the 22 per cent figure is now the go-to for anti-gunners...except...


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/0 ... ared-dead/

So, as we get more facts, the number comes down...I’d guess its a bit lower than 22%

I've always said that it's purchases/transfers that should all require background checks. Just because you're "friends" with someone you're selling a gun to doesn't mean the person you're selling it to should or is allowed to have a gun. It's too big of a loophole to leave open. Heck, a simple straw purchase by someone would be allowed under the "gifting" provision of not doing a background check. Background checks are easy, and you already get them everywhere now anyway (can't be a volunteer or chaperone at a school without one, can't have any official role in a youth sport without one, can't get a job without one) so I don't understand the angst of getting one.

You dont get to do background checks on family transfers or friendly sales without a full on gun registry, which isn't going to happen.

This is the left's "border wall"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Col Hogan]

I've always said that it's purchases/transfers that should all require background checks. Just because you're "friends" with someone you're selling a gun to doesn't mean the person you're selling it to should or is allowed to have a gun. It's too big of a loophole to leave open. Heck, a simple straw purchase by someone would be allowed under the "gifting" provision of not doing a background check. Background checks are easy, and you already get them everywhere now anyway (can't be a volunteer or chaperone at a school without one, can't have any official role in a youth sport without one, can't get a job without one) so I don't understand the angst of getting one.

You dont get to do background checks on family transfers or friendly sales without a full on gun registry, which isn't going to happen.

This is the left's "border wall"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s this too...

[Chizzang]

Has anyone ever really doubted that the position of many people on the left was to move for full confiscation and banning of all guns?

Most on the left try to pretend that isn't the case.

Careful with your giant paintbrush boys

22% of Liberals own guns...
34% of Western US Liberals own guns

[CID1990]

Most on the left try to pretend that isn't the case.

Careful with your giant paintbrush boys

22% of Liberals own guns...
34% of Western US Liberals own guns

Well that dovetails nicely with the percentage of liberals who have common sense, so I won't dispute your numbers.

Oh and I would characterize 78% as most. Maybe 66% too

[AZGrizFan]

The Boston Globe has finally dropped the Progressive charade that “no one wants to take your guns”...That has always been the end-State desire of liberals, but they have long held that they can get to that position through the constant drum of “common-sense” gun laws that constantly move a little closer to their utopian gun-free society...

The curtain is starting to rise, and the desire to confiscate law-abiding citizens property is now openly on the table...



http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/1 ... story.html

Has anyone ever really doubted that the position of many people on the left was to move for full confiscation and banning of all guns? Of course that's their position, they're as anti-gun as some people on the right are pro-guns with zero restrictions. That's why there has to be some type of compromise between banning all guns and doing nothing about gun proliferation/abuse. I don't think there's any value in banning any guns past where we are now, where fully automatics are not allowed. A handgun today can be just as deadly, including in a mass shooting, as any other gun. The biggest things for me are closing the gaping loopholes in background checks (a full 20% plus of transfers/sales don't get background checks) and then fixing the system itself to work correctly so that we're getting a true and accurate background check, not the disaster that the Air Force showed in this recent tragedy.

And it’s precisely why I steadfastly oppose a gun registry.

[GannonFan]

I've always said that it's purchases/transfers that should all require background checks. Just because you're "friends" with someone you're selling a gun to doesn't mean the person you're selling it to should or is allowed to have a gun. It's too big of a loophole to leave open. Heck, a simple straw purchase by someone would be allowed under the "gifting" provision of not doing a background check. Background checks are easy, and you already get them everywhere now anyway (can't be a volunteer or chaperone at a school without one, can't have any official role in a youth sport without one, can't get a job without one) so I don't understand the angst of getting one.

You dont get to do background checks on family transfers or friendly sales without a full on gun registry, which isn't going to happen.

This is the left's "border wall"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you can do it without a registry. Granted, it would have to rely on the gun owner or new owner actively stepping up and doing the background check on their own, and you would never know if it was done unless a crime with that gun happened after the fact (and at that point you can prosecute the seller or buyer for not doing the background check - that would be the deterrent to make people do the checks) so it would never be perfect, but it would lean on the supposed better and law abiding nature of gun owners to police their own and keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Like I said, not perfect, but better than we have now.

[CID1990]

You dont get to do background checks on family transfers or friendly sales without a full on gun registry, which isn't going to happen.

This is the left's "border wall"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you can do it without a registry. Granted, it would have to rely on the gun owner or new owner actively stepping up and doing the background check on their own, and you would never know if it was done unless a crime with that gun happened after the fact (and at that point you can prosecute the seller or buyer for not doing the background check - that would be the deterrent to make people do the checks) so it would never be perfect, but it would lean on the supposed better and law abiding nature of gun owners to police their own and keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Like I said, not perfect, but better than we have now.

So my Dad has a background check run on me when he's ready to pass all our guns to me in a couple years... guns I've been using since I was a kid... guns that are not registered with any entity up to this point

So in order to run this check on me, he has to do it through law enforcement (because hopefully you can see the problem with just having some website where you can run background checks on anybody just by saying you're thinking about selling them a gun)

Dad has to justify why he's checking law enforcement records to see if I can buy a gun, and in order to prove it, he has to give the particulars of the gun to law enforcement, which is a de facto registering of that gun.

Nobody will do this, because see above about gun registries. And there's no way you can pass a SCOTUS-approved way to make the penalty for non-compliance severe enough to deter noncompliance.

[houndawg]

Most on the left try to pretend that isn't the case.

But when you actually have a discussion with any of them it invariably steers towards why are guns like AR-15's even available, why does any one person need to have so many guns, and why can other countries ban guns and not us? And to that the answer will always be the 2nd amendment, which will never, never be repealed. That's why if we're going to do anything other than make political hay over mass shootings or just gun violence as a whole, there are things we can constructively do to improve the situation. Unfortunately, most people prefer to play politics rather than solve anything.

Wrong, the discussion turns to "how come other countries with gun ownership don't experience the massacres we do?"

Why do you think that is?