?

Log in

No account? Create an account

[icon] My gun control proposal - Patti
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (pattib.org).

Security:
Subject:My gun control proposal
Time:02:16 am
1. Handguns must be registered and licensed to an individual, just like motor vehicles. Transfers of registration must be recorded immediately.
2. Handguns must always be stored locked, and the unlocking mechanism must be stored separately.
3. The registered owner of a handgun is responsible for any deaths or injuries that are caused by that gun.
4. There will be some reasonable mechanism for reporting the theft or destruction of a registered handgun.
5. If a gun that is registered to you is ever found unlocked, or in someone else's possession, there will be hell to pay.
6. If you're ever caught with an unregistered gun, there will be hell to pay.

Justification: I want handgun owners to be responsible for what is done with their weapons, and for them to have a really strong motivation to keep them safe.

I'm sure there are holes in my proposal, as it's more conceptual than complete.
comments: Leave a comment Previous Entry Share Next Entry


rmjwell
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 10:54 am (UTC)
We share a brain on this one.
(Reply) (Thread)


rightkindofme
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 11:04 am (UTC)
My problem is these laws are expensive to pass and enforce and do noting to inconvenience or slow down criminals. Only law abiding people will be impacted, making it virtually useless. But very expensive!
(Reply) (Thread)


rmd
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 01:01 pm (UTC)
one of the gun laws in WA that i thought was somewhat inconvenient but ultimately smart is that you can't carry a concealed weapon in a place that sells booze.
(Reply) (Thread)


cork_dork
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 01:21 pm (UTC)
Problem: storing a gun locked with the unlocking device separate renders it much less useful in the case that you need to quickly access it (eg, home invasion). Due to this, it'd be a politically untenable law to support. If you were to amend it to "in a state where anyone other than the firearm owner cannot readily access it," or some similar language, it'd probably find more support.

Additionally, I note that you indicate "handgun," not "firearm." So, in following your rules to the letter, someone could have a pump-action shotgun in each room of their house, loaded and chambered, which is a much, much more dangerous prospect than someone with a handgun in a ready-access safe attached to the nightstand.

Finally, I note that there's no provision for either concealed or open carry; again, a politically untenable situation in most of the US (California would be an exception). In a gun-friendly state like Vermont (where there's no CCW permit requirement) this kind of idea wouldn't even make it out of committee.
(Reply) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 06:36 pm (UTC)
Insert some handwaving about handgun vs. firearm.

Almost nothing I proposed would be politically tenable.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 01:27 pm (UTC)
i dont have any problem with your rules I just dont see how that really stop anything bad from happening. If I buy a gun to only protect my house and register it how will you know if I am keeping it locked? Will there be home inspections?

Serious question for you..in another discussion we talked about Voter ID laws. You said the risk to infringing on someones right to vote was a greater harm than the risk of someone voting who shouldnt. I could be wrong with that description but I think I have it right. The right to bear arms is right there in the constitution and is as ingrained in the US experience as the right to vote. How is this different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
This is 10 year old data but this says taking out suicides (we can assume people who kill themselves will just find another way to do it) around 12k people die each year from gun violence. So if your laws were 100% successful in eliminating hand gun deaths it would affect 0.0042% of the population.

Now I understand that loss of life is worse than loss of the right to vote..but from a strictly math standpoint isnt this as onerous (or more so) as Voter ID laws?

disclaimer..I have never owned a gun. I have never fired a gun. I have never even held a real gun loaded or unloaded. And I think we would be better off if guns didnt exist...
(Reply) (Thread)


jpmassar
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:13 pm (UTC)
It is legally different because the right to vote has been declared to be a "fundamental right" by the US Supreme Court, whereas the right to carry a gun has not (yet), despite the wording of the 2nd amendment and the lack of any mention of a right to vote in the Constitution.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:19 pm (UTC)
but the math doesn't change...this is a solution that if 100% successful offers almost no benefit (obviously except for the family and friends of those harmed). But at the same time will hamper the rights (fundamental or otherwise) of millions of Americans...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


jpmassar
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:59 pm (UTC)
No one's arguing with your math. You asked "How is this different?" and I tried to explain why it is in fact different from a legal point of view.

You yourself answered the question from a moral point of view:

loss of life is worse than loss of the right to vote

Or, in legal speak, restricting someone's rights so as to prevent a murder or killing is more acceptable constitutionally than restricting someone's right to vote to prevent others from fraudulent voting because the consequences are immeasurably worse in the former than the latter
even if the numbers are similar in absolute terms.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 06:40 pm (UTC)
How will I know if you're keeping it locked? I won't.

What I will have done, though, is provide some really hardcore teeth for when you don't keep it locked and something bad happens with it. If you own a gun and don't keep it locked, then I steal it and use it to kill someone, then you get life in prison. That seems like a good motivation to make sure nobody gets your gun.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 06:51 pm (UTC)
i just see too many holes...

Lets say I have a gun and its not locked up. Criminal comes into my house and before I get my gun he has me under control with his gun. He forces me to give him my gun.

You are gonna put me in jail for life if he uses it to kill someone? Really? All I have to say is he forced me to unlock my safe and its not my word versus the word of a murderer..I win that battle every day
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 07:48 pm (UTC)
not = now
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 08:08 pm (UTC)
Would I rather believe a murderer or a salesman? Hrmm...

:-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


schmengie
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 08:14 pm (UTC)
funny..i prefer to think of myself as COO these days...nah, I will always be a salesman
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 08:14 am (UTC)
I said that it has holes.

The principal is "you are responsible for your gun, and if it is used to harm someone you will pay a large penalty." The rest is implementation details.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


dd_b
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 03:45 pm (UTC)
1. No provision for training with a gun belonging to somebody else.
2. No provision for family use of a gun, on the range or for real.
3. Not so clear on this, but no apparent provision for carry, which is currently legal in 49 of 50 states (Illinois has no provisions for civilian carry yet).

Do you think these rules would in any way have prevented the most recent, or even any, mass shooting? Seems unlikely to me.
(Reply) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 06:45 pm (UTC)
OK, you can train with a gun belonging to another individual if and only if that person is present. You can train with a gun belonging to a business entity such as a shooting range. Maybe there is a temporary transfer of responsibility while you are in possession of the gun, but otherwise the owner of the business is on the hook.

If you're carrying you really need to keep your gun safe.


Would it have prevented the mass shooting? I don't know. Would it have prevented, oh, five people being shot outside a movie theater a few blocks from my home recently? Probably.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


dd_b
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 06:18 am (UTC)
Yes, something like those changes can address those issues without affecting your basic program I think.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


prock
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 04:48 pm (UTC)
I like (1), (3), (4), and (6).

Though for #3, I think "responsible" has to be considered, and if you report it under (4) then the responsibility should be greatly if not fully reduced.

As for 2/5, those sound unenforceable or selectively enforceable which is very problematic as it can be used to harass and intimidate groups.
(Reply) (Thread)


prock
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 04:51 pm (UTC)
Reading dd_b, it's clear that there needs to be some sort of acknowledgement of legitimate gun practices as they relate to shooting ranges, hunting, and law enforcement.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 06:49 pm (UTC)
The goal is to make the gun owner ultimately responsible for what happens with their guns, so that they're highly motivated to protect them.

Ideally, if a gun is stolen then the unlocking mechanism would not be, since it has been stored safely away from the gun.

There are loopholes in my proposal, for sure.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


prock
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 10:34 pm (UTC)
Ideally, if a gun is stolen then the unlocking mechanism would not be, since it has been stored safely away from the gun.

I don't really think the whole locking mechanism thing is workable.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


dd_b
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 06:20 am (UTC)
In fact, we're starting to run into problems with the...I think it's the Smith & Wesson internal locking mechanism failing on, making the gun useless for defense.

Trigger locks as currently implemented don't work; people get around them. Simply locking up the whole gun is easy for hand-guns at least, and that's the way to go I think.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


jpmassar
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 05:10 pm (UTC)
You're obviously a Kenyan socialist who wants to take away the rights of all freedom loving Americans.

But beyond that

The registered owner of a handgun is responsible for any deaths or injuries that are caused by that gun.

So if said freedom-loving American confronts someone breaking into his or her house with said gun, and the person breaking into the house manages to wrest the gun away and shoot the homeowner's spouse, the gun owner is (also) responsible and will go to prison?
(Reply) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 06:33 pm (UTC)
Don't be silly, JP. Self-defense with a gun is so successful that the bad guy never gets the gun. Don't you read the literature?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


dd_b
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 06:21 am (UTC)
That's essentially true. Police get shot with their own guns -- but police are required by their job to approach the bad guys and attempt to secure them. Civilians aren't -- and a civilian having their gun taken and used against them is essentially unheard of.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Mark Rafn [dagon.net]
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 08:57 pm (UTC)
Proposal to whom, enforced how? I'm not sold that a "war on handguns" is likely to be any more effective than other attempts at social change via police harassment.

For myself:
#1 - Ehn. My firearms are all registered with my insurance company, at least. I don't personally fear the registration->confiscation slope (because I'm white and relatively rich), but I know a lot of folks who do, and I don't think there's enough problems with law-abiding citizens that registration buys very much.

#2 - agreed. always locked when stored.

#3 - Hmm. I'm not signing up for this, in terms of legal responsibility. I'll feel horrible if a gun is stolen from me and used to kill someone, but sending me to jail for it doesn't seem right.

#4 - isn't there already?

#5 - I reserve the right to lend, gift, and otherwise share my property.

#6 - You'd have to define "hell to pay". Stopping crime by making minor offenses into major ones doesn't sound right to me, but feel free to try it out in California.

Justification: Laws don't create responsible people, they create criminals.
(Reply) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 09:29 pm (UTC)
The goal is that some person owns the responsibility for each gun. Failing to keep a gun safe would be a major offense.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Mark Rafn [dagon.net]
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 11:49 pm (UTC)
There's already a pretty serious emotional responsibility in owning a gun - nobody I know is likely to take significant extra steps in securing their weapons if the laws change. Some would likely choose not to own something if it brought more liability, but that's more akin to banning than to making people act more responsibly.

The irresponsible and criminal gun users would pretty much remain unchanged.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


dd_b
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 06:24 am (UTC)
Lots of people have very bad storage practices -- but I suspect they aren't people who will be moved by law (lots of criminals aren't very good at storing their guns).

The highest-rated safe you can buy to install in your house is rated to resist attack with tools for...30 minutes. And that's the best you can get (Bank vaults are built in place and are MUCH tougher). So the best you could conceivably secure your guns resists 30 minutes of attack. Plus the whole safe can be lifted and carried out (or pried off the studs, or chipped out of the floor).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


clutch_c
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 09:32 pm (UTC)
I'm pretty liberal, more so than most. But it seems to me restricting firearms at the ownership level just doesn't do much to deter a committed lunatic. I would prefer to see the restrictions at the manufacturing g and distribution level. No manufacturing of high capacity magazines. Redisign assault weapons so they can't be adapted for rapid fire. Less of these things in circulation would maybe make these attacks, when they do occur, less deadly.
(Reply) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 09:46 pm (UTC)
The lunatic isn't my primary concern... those are outlier events, and it's probably impossible to stop them.

A few weeks ago, two guys got into an argument outside a movie theater a few blocks from my loft. Five people were shot, though none fatally. It seems like it should be possible to significantly reduce such events.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


timprov
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 10:11 pm (UTC)
Seems like biometric security and appropriately-priced mandatory insurance could go a long way toward accomplishing the same things while being much easier to accomplish.
(Reply) (Thread)


whipartist
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-22 10:40 pm (UTC)
What does insurance accomplish?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


prock
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 03:37 pm (UTC)
Places the cost of gun ownership on all gun owners. Or expressed as usual, lower variance for a vig.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


filthy_habit
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 05:24 am (UTC)
I tend to disagree with a lot of this, particularly number three, but I don't necessarily oppose these ideas (except for a "strongly oppose" on #3). This isn't because I'm some pro-gun nut, although I basically grew up with firearms and was an expert marksman in the Junior NRA when I was a kid and shot in competitions. I never owned a handgun, although walking across the parking lot at Casino San Pablo at 3AM with a few thousand dollars in my wallet made me think more than once that it wouldn't be a bad idea. But I still do have my trusty .22 pump Winchester rifle (a rare bird) and a .270 Ruger deer rifle that I never harmed an animal with, and I stand to inherit an impressive little collection from my dad one day that includes an authentic civil war era Kentucky long rifle that still shoots. I tend to believe that none of these firearms are registered with any authorities.

Some years ago when I watched the Michael Moore film Bowling for Columbine it left a real stink in my mouth because it was so thick with illogical hyperbole. I mean, trying to pin an accidental grade school shooting on Dick Clark because the child's mom wasn't home because she was at work at one of his restaurants was appallingly embarrassing to watch. "You horrible slave driver! How dare you require this woman to work at your restaurant! This could have been prevented!" And then, of course, there was the famous, cringe-worthy interview with the obviously clueless Charlton Heston.

But, through it all, the one good thing the movie did was that it put a perspective on the manic gun culture in this country. It is certainly a unique thing in the world, and the statistics show that. America has an obsession with guns, and the modern day NRA member has a romantic wild-west idea of gun ownership that is, frankly, pretty embarrassing to see and not very enlightened.

The fact is, when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, it was, without a doubt, the most ambiguously worded amendment in the Bill of Rights. As I like to point out, I think the ambiguity in the Constitution was often intentional on the part of the founders as a means of letting future generations decide what it means when weighed against the prevailing sensibilities of their times.

Ultimately, I don't think stringent controls are the answer. I think a paradigm shift in the zeitgeist is more what we need, and putting strict, nearly unenforceable and needless regulations on gun ownership does nothing more than embolden and enrage those constitutional literalists who cling desperately to their romanticized notions of gun ownership. Most gun owners I know are responsible, take care of their firearms and are diligent in safety precautions. Others, of course, are not. I've lived in states where driving around loaded and unlocked rifles in a gun rack was commonplace and almost expected behavior among the natives. I never felt threatened by that. And really, I'm not sure that will ever really change.

Cultural attitudes can be changed over time. We're seeing it now with the growing acceptance of individuals' sexual orientation and atheism. We have changed the cultural paradigm countless times in this country, and I think that if we promote positive change, then it might become culturally accepted one day. I think, for example, that there's way too much gun violence in mainstream action movies, particularly in the vigilante genre. I'm not suggesting that we regulate or censor movies to reduce the bloodshed, nor do I suggest that violence in movies leads to violence in real life, but people can vote with their feet and send Hollywood a message to quit making love to firearms and stop making it look so darn romantic. Some of the best thrillers I've seen never involved firing a weapon. Let's get that message out.

In the end, I don't think it's the laws that will fix the problem. It's the shifting attitudes of the people that will fix the problem. It's not an overnight type of process, but those kinds of changes usually have a more lasting effect. Why incite hostility among extremists?
(Reply) (Thread)

loser_variable
Link:(Link)
Time:2012-07-23 10:46 pm (UTC)
Fair enough.


7. If I am harmed because my gun is inaccessible due to a law, when I could have otherwise defended myself, the maker of the law is liable, and subject to criminal and civil remedies.


Justification: let's all be responsible for the affect our actions have on others.
(Reply) (Thread)

[icon] My gun control proposal - Patti
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (pattib.org).