Bill Frists thoughts on Gun Control

[Leftfield 2,646]

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

Sure, I'm familiar with the loophole. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I thought your concern was that expanding background checks to all gun purchases would require a gun registry. I just didn't understand why that would be the case.

Hypothetically, how could you prove we did a background check if you sold me a firearm in a private sale unless it was recorded in some type of registry?

From my understanding, in order to facilitate a sale with a background check, existing stores could be set up as a sale point and the store could run the check, for a fee, of course. Seems like a reasonable solution, but as I said, I'm fairly ignorant of the process.

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

Not quite sure what you're saying here, but in my view, culture has evolved around firearms. There is of course the inner-city culture, but there is also the culture that has embraced military-style weapons and glorifies the firepower and ability to stand against the government. I don't see many people in that group encouraging safety. 

In all honesty, how much time have you spent involved in the "gun culture"?  I've been competition shooting and members of several private gun clubs for many years, and I think the amount of safety would surprise you.  

Honestly not much, and the time I did spend was when I was much younger. I grew up in a small town north of Baton Rouge, and of course had a number of friends who hunted. I did target shooting from time-to-time, mainly with 22s.  Knew a few kids who were the irresponsible type I mentioned - bragged about having guns and sometimes secretly carried them around, though AR-style guns hadn't really jumped on the scene at that point. I'd been taught well enough to stay away from guns with people you didn't trust, so I wouldn't hang around long if I could help it, but at the same time, it was a part of the culture where I grew up. There were so many guns around that it didn't really occur to me that some people were that negligent with them. You just don't think about it when you're young. 

Can't remember which thread I mentioned this in, but my dad was a member of the NRA up until the early 70s. He said a big reason he left was because he began to see a major shift in the culture, primarily among younger members. He said the focus on safety and pure shooting was beginning to give way to those looking for more firepower and deadlier weapons, glorifying the weapons and not the skill. He has a 22 rifle that he taught me to shoot, and the first thing he would say any time he handed it to me was to make damn sure that barrel never pointed toward a human being. 

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people, in my opinion, is to make it very difficult to obtain them in the first place. To own a weapon like an AR-15, I believe you should have to go through pretty rigorous training and safety courses, and have a sterling background. Many of those who are irresponsible won't have those clean backgrounds, and of those that do, many won't want to go through all that much effort. Primarily, though, and I know we disagree on this, I simply don't think an average person has a "right" to a weapon like that. I also believe we should reword the 2nd Amendment to state, as some other countries do, that the Amendment extends only to weapons not prohibited by law. 

You're right that we'll probably never see eye to eye regarding the right to own semi automatic rifles, but you do realize that if we actually enforce the existing rules & laws and follow the processes already in place, many of the "bad guys" will already "prohibited persons" regarding firearm ownership & purchases.  The problem is that most people don't want to accept responsibility for holding people accountable.  Just banning items from everyone just feels like the easy way out.

I understand your point, but I also think we might be talking a bit past each other. I'm really trying to narrow this down to mass shootings, which seems to be a much different animal that overall gun violence. Most of the guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally, and not only are the shootings becoming more common, the percentage of uses of AR-style guns is increasing. 

I should add that we really might need to look at restricting sales of body armor, and perhaps other tactical gear, to the average person, as well. Not sure exactly how we'd do that, as on its face restricting defense gear seems absurd, but at the same time, what else could it possibly be used for other than to protect yourself if you're expecting to be in a firefight?

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

Agreed, don't know if it's doable, but I do think it should be looked at to see if there's any way to at least mitigate it. I would point out, however, that there isn't an 18 year old in the world that thinks they're too young or immature for anything!

I guess I just keep thinking we continue to remove responsibility from 18 year olds and then wonder why they are less responsible...  We've got more "adult children" living in their parents basements and avoiding the real world than at any point in our history. 

Very good point here as well, but at the same time, as civilization has evolved and lifespans have increased, the age for many things has been continually pushed back. There was a time when it was routine for people to marry in their mid-teens. Latchkey kids in the 80s could be home for hours before their parents got home, even if they were seven or eight years old. 

I'm not saying this is something we need to do immediately, but I'll admit to some moral discomfort about it. The more we learn about the developing brain, the more some of the dumb decisions I made at that age make sense. I just think it's something that needs to be kept in mind.

In closing, I know there's a chasm you and I are simply not going to be able to close on this, but I'm glad we can have this conversation. I do respect your thoughts on it, particularly because I used to feel the same. The good thing is that we can at least agree on some of the steps to improve.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I guess to me, I just don't quite understand the logic of those who fight tooth and nail against almost any restriction, delay, or ban on various kinds of firearms or those who can own them.  This issue of gun violence is treated unlike anything else these (mostly) conservatives do when it comes to the law of the land and trying to decrease or eliminate something.  They're able to see a correlation between restricting access to abortion and abortion rates going down.  They typically believe that restricting access to prostitution or drugs will result in less prostitution and drug use.  They've almost never met a social or societal ill they believe shouldn't be happening or should at least be exceedingly rare that they don't think should be regulated, restricted or made completely illegal.

But for some reason, they see no correlation between access to guns and gun violence. I just don't get it.  How do you completely abandon your normal approach on this one thing?  How do you not look at statistic after statistic worldwide and not see the correlation between easy access to guns and more gun deaths - suicides, murders, mass shootings?

I don't say this as an anti-gun person.  I own guns (mostly for home/personal protection).  My family owns guns - many are hunters and own rifles/shotguns, and also frequently carry a pistol on them concealed carry. 

I've pondered this a lot - how to preserve a right to bear arms and protect yourself and your family while finding ways to make it extremely hard for the wrong people to have access to them.  I don't think there's an easy way to make AR-15's and similar weapons harder to get for criminals and those with mental illness that has zero effect on good, responsible gun owners who would only use them for home defense or at the shooting range.  That needle cannot be threaded.  If your priority is to never inconvenience the "responsible gun owner" - hereafter referred to as RGO's - the same convenience is naturally going to extend to people you don't want having these weapons.  If RGO's refuse to have their ability to quickly and easily obtain firearms of virtually any kind slowed or scrutinized in any significant manner, they are basically saying that this ease of access for them matters more than preventing bad people from getting them.  There's no less damning option here.

[GoAU 1,600]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I guess to me, I just don't quite understand the logic of those who fight tooth and nail against almost any restriction, delay, or ban on various kinds of firearms or those who can own them.  This issue of gun violence is treated unlike anything else these (mostly) conservatives do when it comes to the law of the land and trying to decrease or eliminate something.  They're able to see a correlation between restricting access to abortion and abortion rates going down.  They typically believe that restricting access to prostitution or drugs will result in less prostitution and drug use.  They've almost never met a social or societal ill they believe shouldn't be happening or should at least be exceedingly rare that they don't think should be regulated, restricted or made completely illegal.

But for some reason, they see no correlation between access to guns and gun violence. I just don't get it.  How do you completely abandon your normal approach on this one thing?  How do you not look at statistic after statistic worldwide and not see the correlation between easy access to guns and more gun deaths - suicides, murders, mass shootings?

I don't say this as an anti-gun person.  I own guns (mostly for home/personal protection).  My family owns guns - many are hunters and own rifles/shotguns, and also frequently carry a pistol on them concealed carry. 

I've pondered this a lot - how to preserve a right to bear arms and protect yourself and your family while finding ways to make it extremely hard for the wrong people to have access to them.  I don't think there's an easy way to make AR-15's and similar weapons harder to get for criminals and those with mental illness that has zero effect on good, responsible gun owners who would only use them for home defense or at the shooting range.  That needle cannot be threaded.  If your priority is to never inconvenience the "responsible gun owner" - hereafter referred to as RGO's - the same convenience is naturally going to extend to people you don't want having these weapons.  If RGO's refuse to have their ability to quickly and easily obtain firearms of virtually any kind slowed or scrutinized in any significant manner, they are basically saying that this ease of access for them matters more than preventing bad people from getting them.  There's no less damning option here.

First, I’d like to thank you for a well thought out post.  
 

On your first point - you’re comparing something that is a Constitutional right to things that aren’t, there is a bit of a difference there.  Secondly, you’re asking to remove rights from all people to deal with an issue that can, and should be dealt with in other ways - many that already exist.  
 

For example, should we revisit prohibition to help stem drunk driving fatalities (of which there are many times more than gun fatalities)?   Do we ban sweets from all people to combat obesity?   It’s hard to tell if you are focusing on select mass shooting events only, or firearm crimes as a whole, but in most cases there are numerous failures that happened that could have prevented the incidents from occurring and instead of really looking at how we continue to miss these things we constantly resort to MORE laws and MORE infringement of rights.   
 

When it comes to why gun owners “refuse to compromise” it is because the “compromise” has only been one way the entire time, and as soon as someone stands up for their rights, people are quick to start the mud slinging and “guilt by association” approach.   Allowing someone to temporarily maintain a percentage of the rights they once had is not “compromise”.  
 

Regarding your comment about not knowing how to make guns harder to acquire for criminals without impacting RGOs, my first step would be to get the criminals off the streets.  That helps everyone and only punishes those that deserve it.  
 

Regarding access to guns - I’m certainly willing to hear ideas as how to keep them out of the hands of the “wrong people” but I don’t see any way these ideas will work without identifying who the “wrong people” are - and if we just do that, the vast majority of time the current system can work.   But failing to enforce the current system will probably mean the new system will fail too.  

[GoAU 1,600]

34 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

From my understanding, in order to facilitate a sale with a background check, existing stores could be set up as a sale point and the store could run the check, for a fee, of course. Seems like a reasonable solution, but as I said, I'm fairly ignorant of the process.

I understand what you’re saying, but my point is that if you were to sell me a firearm, and later I am in possession of it and you (or I) are asked if a background check was done, how do we prove it without having a registry of all sales and transactions?   
 

Also, it has been proven registration has no effect on crime, so in reality all we are doing by a registry is making future confiscation easier.   That’s why so many people are opposed.  

[Leftfield 2,646]

45 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I understand what you’re saying, but my point is that if you were to sell me a firearm, and later I am in possession of it and you (or I) are asked if a background check was done, how do we prove it without having a registry of all sales and transactions?   

How is it done now? Honestly, I don't know. If a gun is sold at a store, when the store runs the background check, does it go to a registry?

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

How did the US Government reduce and eventually eliminate (ban) automatic weapons in civilian hands?  It was a multi-pronged approach in 1934.

In 1934, Congress passed 20 administration-backed crime bills. In a first, Division of Investigation agents now could make arrests and carry firearms. The laws’ new categories of federal offenses made the Justice Department and the Division of Investigation major players in the fight against crime. Robbing a federally insured bank became a federal crime, as did crossing a state line to avoid prosecution and interfering with or killing a federal agent. But while Cummings estimated more than 500,000 criminals were “armed to the teeth,” there still was no federal curb on firearms. 

In 1934, Cummings forwarded a gun control plan to Congress. He proposed a $200 tax—today, nearly $4,000—when a machine gun changed hands. At retail, a Thompson ranged in price between $175 and $227; the federal tax presumably would price it out of the legitimate market and leave a paper trail of ownership should the weapon see illegal use.

As part of the tax scheme, Cummings proposed registering machine guns. At sale or transfer, the new owner would have to give the Internal Revenue Service the weapon’s serial number and the new owner’s photograph and fingerprints. Owners whose possession of automatic weapons predated the regulation would have 60 days to register. Failure to register would risk a five-year federal prison term and a $2,000 fine, as would possession of an unregistered machine gun.

The proposal avoided the pitfalls that an outright ban posed. “[I]f we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved,” Cummings said. Framing the control mechanism as a tax, he said, “you are easily within the law.” The tax tack outmaneuvered criminal law’s limitations. Federal taxation authority underpinned the 1914 Harrison Act, a foundational federal narcotics statute implemented to restrict access to opium, cocaine, and other drugs, on an international migratory fowl treaty. The U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the drug law. Tax law could reach areas the ordinary criminal law could not, as in 1931, when federal tax violations tripped up once-untouchable gangland boss Al Capone.

Besides machine guns, H.R. 9066 covered pistols, revolvers, and “any other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.”

Reckord was more strident. “[A] pistol or revolver is not dangerous; it is only dangerous in the hands of the crook,” he said. “Honest citizens…won’t obey [a pistol-registration requirement] and you are going to legislate 15 million sportsmen into criminals…with the stroke of the President’s pen.” If the administration excised handguns from the bill, the NRA vowed to lend  its wholehearted support. 

H.R. 9066 failed. On May 23, 1934, Rep. Robert L. Doughton (D-North Carolina) introduced a kindred bill, H.R. 97401, which expressly exempted pistols and revolvers. With little debate, the House passed Doughton’s bill on June 13, 1934; the Senate followed suit five days later. Roosevelt signed the bill on June 26, 1934. 

Revisiting the National Firearms Act in 1968, the Supreme Court invalidated that legislation’s registration requirements. The reason was not the right to bear arms or the commerce clause, but the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. By this time, many states had banned possession of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, meanwhile outlawing possession of firearms by felons. A felon or a person in any of those states who obeyed the law and registered a prohibited weapon was admitting tacitly to committing a crime, the court ruled. The trap U.S. Attorney Homer Cummings had set for gangsters and outlaws 34 years earlier had caught the government, and later that year, Congress eliminated the act’s registration requirements.

https://www.historynet.com/how-1930s-american-gang-violence-paved-the-way-for-gun-control/

And now you know and knowing this; how is the US Government (Biden) going to ban AR-15s and, at the same time, eliminate millions of these weapons from circulation?

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

53 minutes ago, GoAU said:

First, I’d like to thank you for a well thought out post.  
 

On your first point - you’re comparing something that is a Constitutional right to things that aren’t, there is a bit of a difference there.

I realize that, but I don't think it changes anything.  All our constitutional rights are subject to certain requirements, restrictions and so on.  You have to be 18 to vote.  The press (as we are seeing with Fox News and Dominion/Smartmatic voting machine makers) cannot knowingly report false and damaging information without consequence.  You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building and induce a panicked stampede that ends up injuring people.  The right to vote, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech are 100% constitutional rights, but also come with various boundaries, regulations, restrictions, and things you cannot do under the banner of "rights."  Why should the right to bear arms be any different?

 

53 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Secondly, you’re asking to remove rights from all people to deal with an issue that can, and should be dealt with in other ways - many that already exist.  

What current laws or regulation would put any impediment in the way of someone with no criminal record from easily obtaining an AR-15, large capacity magazines, body armor, and plenty of ammo, and shooting up a mall or some other public place?

 

53 minutes ago, GoAU said:

For example, should we revisit prohibition to help stem drunk driving fatalities (of which there are many times more than gun fatalities)?

Do we ban sweets from all people to combat obesity?   It’s hard to tell if you are focusing on select mass shooting events only, or firearm crimes as a whole, but in most cases there are numerous failures that happened that could have prevented the incidents from occurring and instead of really looking at how we continue to miss these things we constantly resort to MORE laws and MORE infringement of rights.

I agree that some cases we had failures that could have prevented the shootings.  But just as often we find that the shooter legally obtained their firearms because 1) they didn't have a criminal record, 2) they weren't seeing a therapist for any mental health issues and/or the therapist is bound by doctor/patient confidentiality from reporting anything, 3) many states don't have any kind of red flag law in place so even if a mental health professional or a family member reported that the person had expressed violent ideation, nothing can happen.  They can't be put on a "no gun" list in the background check, they can't have any weapons they currently own taken from them temporarily - nothing.

And while, no, I don't think prohibition is the answer to drunk driving, I wasn't proposing prohibition of gun ownership, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. 

I am concerned about all shootings, but the mass shootings are of critical concern because of how they mostly affect innocent, uninvolved people.  And I think different kinds of gun violence warrant different approaches.  I don't like gang violence, but most of these idiots chose to live that life and put themselves in harm's way by being in on to begin with.  And I hate suicide as much as anyone, but again, this is something happening to a person who chose to do this to themselves.  But when some rando takes out her perceived grievances with society by breaking into an elementary school and murdering children, or some a**hole hops out of a car to shoot random shoppers, I think it enters into a different kind of killing.  It's not one that can mostly be avoided.  It can't be predicted.  You're just unlucky to be shopping for jeans one day or something. 

 

53 minutes ago, GoAU said:

When it comes to why gun owners “refuse to compromise” it is because the “compromise” has only been one way the entire time, and as soon as someone stands up for their rights, people are quick to start the mud slinging and “guilt by association” approach.   Allowing someone to temporarily maintain a percentage of the rights they once had is not “compromise”.  

But this is what adults do.  We look at situations and circumstances and adjust.  We learn that there are ways in which good things can be too easily exploited for bad purposes and make laws and regulations to deal with that - through preventative measures, legal requirements and qualifications, consequences for abuse of that good thing and so on.  To view it only as "compromise" is telling in and of itself.

 

53 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Regarding your comment about not knowing how to make guns harder to acquire for criminals without impacting RGOs, my first step would be to get the criminals off the streets.  That helps everyone and only punishes those that deserve it. 

I mean, sure.  But a large number of people doing these shootings aren't criminals before they committed this particular act.  Getting criminals off the street might be one of several ways to cut down on gang violence for instance.  Or armed robberies that end in a gun death.  But it's of little value to make it harder for someone without a criminal record to easily obtain firearms and kill several people.  That's what my statement was about.

 

53 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Regarding access to guns - I’m certainly willing to hear ideas as how to keep them out of the hands of the “wrong people” but I don’t see any way these ideas will work without identifying who the “wrong people” are - and if we just do that, the vast majority of time the current system can work.   But failing to enforce the current system will probably mean the new system will fail too.  

But we have the gun lobby fighting red flag laws at every turn for instance.  And 2A advocates keep voting in politicians in their states who are beholden to the gun lobby.  So even if they personally would support such measures, the politician who depends on gun lobby money and endorsements won't.  It seems like either people in this camp either truly believe there's some magical unicorn type way to construct laws that will only target bad actors and not inconvenience RGOs in any fashion whatsoever, or they simply value that convenience far more than they do the lives that will be lost instead.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

And now you know and knowing this; how is the US Government (Biden) going to ban AR-15s and, at the same time, eliminate millions of these weapons from circulation?

A couple of ideas that could pass muster with that SCOTUS ruling:

First, you have a blanket amnesty period to turn in such a gun for compensation.  You basically have a date in the future and any time before that date, you can turn the illegal weapon into the authorities and be paid a fair price for it. 

If you are found to be in possession of such a gun after that date, you will face at minimum a fine and confiscation of the gun without any compensation given for it.  And each individual illegal gun is a separate violation, so the fines will increase with each violation and you could at some level, face potential jail time.

If you do not wish to identify yourself to authorities as someone who owned one of these guns (and thus "incriminate yourself"), you may alternately irrecoverably destroy the weapon yourself, thus fulfilling the law while keeping your prior ownership of it private.

So you have reasonable time period to turn in a weapon and face no charges PLUS be compensated or you can completely destroy the weapon so it cannot be reconstructed.  Either way, you face no self incrimination.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

A couple of ideas that could pass muster with that SCOTUS ruling:

First, you have a blanket amnesty period to turn in such a gun for compensation.  You basically have a date in the future and any time before that date, you can turn the illegal weapon into the authorities and be paid a fair price for it. 

If you are found to be in possession of such a gun after that date, you will face at minimum a fine and confiscation of the gun without any compensation given for it.  And each individual illegal gun is a separate violation, so the fines will increase with each violation and you could at some level, face potential jail time.

If you do not wish to identify yourself to authorities as someone who owned one of these guns (and thus "incriminate yourself"), you may alternately irrecoverably destroy the weapon yourself, thus fulfilling the law while keeping your prior ownership of it private.

So you have reasonable time period to turn in a weapon and face no charges PLUS be compensated or you can completely destroy the weapon so it cannot be reconstructed.  Either way, you face no self incrimination.

That is essentially what they did in 1934 except instead of paying the owner the owner was taxed to keep it or, if not turned in within 60 days, fined $2000 and go to jail.  Different times.  I am sure it didn’t take long to disarm the population of the automatic weapons back then.

What do you feel is a fair price?  Considering that we have approximately 20 million in circulation this could be a budget buster. I believe, if the money is right, most law abiding citizens would bring those weapons in, but not all and I’m not sure of the criminal element.

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That is essentially what they did in 1934 except instead of paying the owner the owner was taxed to keep it or, if not turned in within 60 days, fined $2000 and go to jail.  Different times.  I am sure it didn’t take long to disarm the population of the automatic weapons back then.

What do you feel is a fair price?  Considering that we have approximately 20 million in circulation this could be a budget buster. I believe, if the money is right, most law abiding citizens would bring those weapons in, but not all and I’m not sure of the criminal element.

Not sure about the price.  I know the average is around $850 but can go up to around $2000-ish for a top of the line one.  Might not be able to give people exactly what they want for it, but since it's about to be illegal, something is better than nothing.

Another option that could be added to the mix might be that you could pay a "tax" and have your gun securely stored at a qualified shooting range facility.  You'd be allowed to come and target shoot, but not permitted to take it offsite.  That might relieve some of the cost of a buyback.  There could also be a "cash up front" price offered that's lower, or a higher "market rate" price offered if the gov't is allowed to pay it over time in the form of a tax credit or something.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That is essentially what they did in 1934 except instead of paying the owner the owner was taxed to keep it or, if not turned in within 60 days, fined $2000 and go to jail.  Different times.  I am sure it didn’t take long to disarm the population of the automatic weapons back then.

What do you feel is a fair price?  Considering that we have approximately 20 million in circulation this could be a budget buster. I believe, if the money is right, most law abiding citizens would bring those weapons in, but not all and I’m not sure of the criminal element.

 

20 million.....considering how much money this country pisses away I don't think it would be a budget buster. $2500 each would be $50 billion. That is not much to the US government.....Sadly.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Another option that could be added to the mix might be that you could pay a "tax" and have your gun securely stored at a qualified shooting range facility.  You'd be allowed to come and target shoot, but not permitted to take it offsite.  That might relieve some of the cost of a buyback.  There could also be a "cash up front" price offered that's lower, or a higher "market rate" price offered if the gov't is allowed to pay it over time in the form of a tax credit or something.

That wouldn’t work for us rural guys.  We sometimes shoot on our property and that is where the restricting government over reach comes in.  However, not many of us around I guess.

It will be a complicate negotiation and not as simple as just an outright ban.  It is interesting the way the government stayed away from the word *ban* in 1934 for Constitutional reasons.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

17 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

20 million.....considering how much money this country pisses away I don't think it would be a budget buster. $2500 each would be $50 billion. That is not much to the US government.....Sadly.

Yeah, could be, but for this particular reason it could be contentious.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

That wouldn’t work for us rural guys.  We sometimes shoot on our property and that is where the restricting government over reach comes in.  However, not many of us around I guess.

It will be a complicate negotiation and not as simple as just an outright ban.  It is interesting the way the government stayed away from the word *ban* in 1934 for Constitutional reasons.

To be honest, I'd be willing to try a far more extensive and intrusive background check, a waiting period, restrictions on magazine size, a "tax" to make it prohibitively expensive to own, and such.  It might be enough to curtail the ones that can just pull together $800, grab one in less than an hour at the gun store and be out there shooting people who have nothing to do with their problems in no time flat that we see a dramatic decrease in these kinds of shootings.  Maybe I'm wrong.  It seems worth a try rather than Round #129492382 of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

To be honest, I'd be willing to try a far more extensive and intrusive background check, a waiting period, restrictions on magazine size, a "tax" to make it prohibitively expensive to own, and such.  It might be enough to curtail the ones that can just pull together $800, grab one in less than an hour at the gun store and be out there shooting people who have nothing to do with their problems in no time flat that we see a dramatic decrease in these kinds of shootings.  Maybe I'm wrong.  It seems worth a try rather than Round #129492382 of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

That would have stopped the Uvalde shooter.

[homersapien 11,428]

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-marks-25-years-since-worst-mass-shooting-2021-04-28/#:~:text=Within two weeks of the massacre%2C the then,unlicensed firearms were surrendered under a gun amnesty.

Australia marks 25 years since worst mass shooting

Reuters

SYDNEY, April 28 (Reuters) - Australia marked the 25th anniversary of the country's worst mass shooting on Wednesday in which a lone gunman killed 35 people and forced authorities to implement some of the world's toughest gun laws.

Martin Bryant went on a shooting spree on April 28, 1996 at a cafe and tourist site at the former colonial prison of Port Arthur, in the island state of Tasmania, with military-style weapons he had bought without background checks.

Within two weeks of the massacre, the then conservative prime minister John Howard had brokered a National Firearms Agreement law limiting licensing and ownership controls of guns.

Australia banned all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and thousands of unlicensed firearms were surrendered under a gun amnesty.

"We took hundreds of thousands of guns out of the community and the evidence since ... is that there have been no mass shootings since then, and the country is a much safer place," Howard told the Australian Broadcasting Corp on Wednesday.

The firearms law is held up by many abroad as an example of the need for tighter gun controls in the United States, which has seen a surge in mass shootings in 2021.

U.S. recorded 163 mass shooting events this year as of Monday, up from 94 over the same period in the prior year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. read more

Australia has had no mass shootings since 1996.

Total deaths from firearms were 521 in the country in 1996. In 2019, with the population up from about 18 million to 25 million, Australia had 219 deaths, official data showed.

Reporting by Renju Jose; Editing by Michael Perry

 

 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, Leftfield said:

How is it done now? Honestly, I don't know. If a gun is sold at a store, when the store runs the background check, does it go to a registry?

How it is done now is honestly borderline against the law too.   The way it works currently is a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) i.e. gun store fills out an ATF form 4473, which is essentially a questionnaire of qualifying criteria.  Then the FFL collects ID, and calls the background check to the FBIs NICS system.   The gun store is then required to maintain those records for (I believe) 20 years.  There are rules stating if the store goes out of business, the records must be submitted to the ATF - this is where things start to get a little dicey.   First, Biden's ATF  has a  "zero tolerance" approach, and it is putting FFLs out of business for any first offense.  Now, I am all for putting a FFL out of business and into jail for knowingly violating the law, but they are revoking licenses for minor administrative errors as well - no opportunity to correct the errors.   SO, when they put the FFL out of business, and the 4473s are surrendered to the ATF, the ATF is immediately digitizing them - which in essence creates a defacto registry,  When asked by Congress if this was a searchable database, they admitted it was.  However, they stated they don't use that feature - like they're supposed to be trusted.

 

Ironically, if a gun owner had parts that could convert a rifle to full auto and the ATF shows up, you go to jail - even if you promise them you won't use it that way....  (that was rhetorical sarcasm, I am not defending illegal full auto conversion). 

[Leftfield 2,646]

10 minutes ago, GoAU said:

How it is done now is honestly borderline against the law too.   The way it works currently is a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) i.e. gun store fills out an ATF form 4473, which is essentially a questionnaire of qualifying criteria.  Then the FFL collects ID, and calls the background check to the FBIs NICS system.   The gun store is then required to maintain those records for (I believe) 20 years.  There are rules stating if the store goes out of business, the records must be submitted to the ATF - this is where things start to get a little dicey.   First, Biden's ATF  has a  "zero tolerance" approach, and it is putting FFLs out of business for any first offense.  Now, I am all for putting a FFL out of business and into jail for knowingly violating the law, but they are revoking licenses for minor administrative errors as well - no opportunity to correct the errors.   SO, when they put the FFL out of business, and the 4473s are surrendered to the ATF, the ATF is immediately digitizing them - which in essence creates a defacto registry,  When asked by Congress if this was a searchable database, they admitted it was.  However, they stated they don't use that feature - like they're supposed to be trusted.

 

Ironically, if a gun owner had parts that could convert a rifle to full auto and the ATF shows up, you go to jail - even if you promise them you won't use it that way....  (that was rhetorical sarcasm, I am not defending illegal full auto conversion). 

Thanks. I was wondering how it was done where the government didn't have an immediate record of it.

On the face of it, meaning disregarding the potential for the ATF database being abused, could private sales not go through the same process? 

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I realize that, but I don't think it changes anything.  All our constitutional rights are subject to certain requirements, restrictions and so on.  You have to be 18 to vote.  The press (as we are seeing with Fox News and Dominion/Smartmatic voting machine makers) cannot knowingly report false and damaging information without consequence.  You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building and induce a panicked stampede that ends up injuring people.  The right to vote, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech are 100% constitutional rights, but also come with various boundaries, regulations, restrictions, and things you cannot do under the banner of "rights."  Why should the right to bear arms be any different?

There are literally thousands of gun laws already on the books - no one is saying there are not limitations.   What people are saying is the limitations in place are adequate and strike a balance.

 

What current laws or regulation would put any impediment in the way of someone with no criminal record from easily obtaining an AR-15, large capacity magazines, body armor, and plenty of ammo, and shooting up a mall or some other public place?

What law prohibits someone from buying a truck and plowing into a crowd?  What law prohibits someone from buying ammonia and fertilizer and renting a U Haul?  How many people have to give up rights to make you "feel safe"?

 

I agree that some cases we had failures that could have prevented the shootings.  But just as often we find that the shooter legally obtained their firearms because 1) they didn't have a criminal record, 2) they weren't seeing a therapist for any mental health issues and/or the therapist is bound by doctor/patient confidentiality from reporting anything, 3) many states don't have any kind of red flag law in place so even if a mental health professional or a family member reported that the person had expressed violent ideation, nothing can happen.  They can't be put on a "no gun" list in the background check, they can't have any weapons they currently own taken from them temporarily - nothing.

And while, no, I don't think prohibition is the answer to drunk driving, I wasn't proposing prohibition of gun ownership, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. 

No, but you are advocating the first step of what can only lead to an essential ban.  After the evil "Assault Rifles" are banned, and the needle on gun violence doesn't move - what is the next step?

I am concerned about all shootings, but the mass shootings are of critical concern because of how they mostly affect innocent, uninvolved people.  And I think different kinds of gun violence warrant different approaches.  I don't like gang violence, but most of these idiots chose to live that life and put themselves in harm's way by being in on to begin with.  And I hate suicide as much as anyone, but again, this is something happening to a person who chose to do this to themselves.  But when some rando takes out her perceived grievances with society by breaking into an elementary school and murdering children, or some a**hole hops out of a car to shoot random shoppers, I think it enters into a different kind of killing.  It's not one that can mostly be avoided.  It can't be predicted.  You're just unlucky to be shopping for jeans one day or something. 

I completely agree that these shootings are horrible, we just disagree on how to best prevent them.  The parade tragedy in Wisconsin killed 6 people, and there are numerous others where vehicles were used - anyone up for banning cars?   Even if we were to magically eliminate all firearms, why wouldn't we think these wont take their place?

But this is what adults do.  We look at situations and circumstances and adjust.  We learn that there are ways in which good things can be too easily exploited for bad purposes and make laws and regulations to deal with that - through preventative measures, legal requirements and qualifications, consequences for abuse of that good thing and so on.  To view it only as "compromise" is telling in and of itself.

Is this really what "adults" do?  I'm going to resist the urge to tell you how I feel about the rest of this one.  But if you really think this is what's happening in the world, you've got bigger issues and my opinion sure won't help.

 

I mean, sure.  But a large number of people doing these shootings aren't criminals before they committed this particular act.  Getting criminals off the street might be one of several ways to cut down on gang violence for instance.  Or armed robberies that end in a gun death.  But it's of little value to make it harder for someone without a criminal record to easily obtain firearms and kill several people.  That's what my statement was about.

 

But we have the gun lobby fighting red flag laws at every turn for instance.  And 2A advocates keep voting in politicians in their states who are beholden to the gun lobby.  So even if they personally would support such measures, the politician who depends on gun lobby money and endorsements won't.  It seems like either people in this camp either truly believe there's some magical unicorn type way to construct laws that will only target bad actors and not inconvenience RGOs in any fashion whatsoever, or they simply value that convenience far more than they do the lives that will be lost instead.

Yeah, because the gun control advocates don't have lobbying groups and throw around cash.  Soros buys more politicians than the NRA - hands down.  

 

As for Red Flag Laws, I've made my oints clear o these earlier in the thread.  They violate due process, there is zero accountability for people who abuse the process, and people have to spend large amounts of their own money to get their rights restored.  It's horribly unconstitutional.

 

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

A couple of ideas that could pass muster with that SCOTUS ruling:

First, you have a blanket amnesty period to turn in such a gun for compensation.  You basically have a date in the future and any time before that date, you can turn the illegal weapon into the authorities and be paid a fair price for it. 

If you are found to be in possession of such a gun after that date, you will face at minimum a fine and confiscation of the gun without any compensation given for it.  And each individual illegal gun is a separate violation, so the fines will increase with each violation and you could at some level, face potential jail time.

If you do not wish to identify yourself to authorities as someone who owned one of these guns (and thus "incriminate yourself"), you may alternately irrecoverably destroy the weapon yourself, thus fulfilling the law while keeping your prior ownership of it private.

So you have reasonable time period to turn in a weapon and face no charges PLUS be compensated or you can completely destroy the weapon so it cannot be reconstructed.  Either way, you face no self incrimination.

Hmm - sounds like a play out of the Tyranny 101 Playbook.

 

The current SCOTUS won't pass that, and may in fact reverse some of the other unconstitutional laws.

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

To be honest, I'd be willing to try a far more extensive and intrusive background check, a waiting period, restrictions on magazine size, a "tax" to make it prohibitively expensive to own, and such.  It might be enough to curtail the ones that can just pull together $800, grab one in less than an hour at the gun store and be out there shooting people who have nothing to do with their problems in no time flat that we see a dramatic decrease in these kinds of shootings.  Maybe I'm wrong.  It seems worth a try rather than Round #129492382 of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

If the current background check isn't flagging what people "may" do in the future - what would your "extensive and intrusive" background check do differently"?

 

As to adding "taxes" to make guns unobtainable to poor people - how did poll taxes fair in passing the constitutional muster?  In today's terms this also could be considered racist to the the disproportionate amount of minorities impacted.  

[GoAU 1,600]

15 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Thanks. I was wondering how it was done where the government didn't have an immediate record of it.

On the face of it, meaning disregarding the potential for the ATF database being abused, could private sales not go through the same process? 

Potentially there could be a way to make it work where both the buyer and the seller could retain some type of confirmation number given when the call in background check was completed.  It could possibly work...

[icanthearyou 4,463]

11 hours ago, GoAU said:

On your first point - you’re comparing something that is a Constitutional right to things that aren’t, there is a bit of a difference there.  Secondly, you’re asking to remove rights from all people to deal with an issue that can, and should be dealt with in other ways - many that already exist.  

If you go strictly by that view of the second amendment,,, you cannot place age limits on gun ownership. 

You truly believe that owning an assault rifle is your constitutional right?  Is there any limit on the killing efficiency of any firearm?  Was that truly the founders intent?

[autigeremt 6,666]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

If you go strictly by that view of the second amendment,,, you cannot place age limits on gun ownership. 

You truly believe that owning an assault rifle is your constitutional right?  Is there any limit on the killing efficiency of any firearm?  Was that truly the founders intent?

All weapons are “assault” weapons when used for something other than hunting or defense. 
 

This issue is similar to every other political “battle” in 2023. Irrational and full of holes. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

All weapons are “assault” weapons when used for something other than hunting or defense. 

That doesn't make them equal.  The AR is highly efficient for killing human beings.  It's efficiency for killing in mass IS the problem.