What gun-control really ought to do

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

One thing gun-control really really ought to get a new name. Having that unfortunate "control" term stuck in there is mostly a myth. Laws don't control people.

People control themselves; people can control other people. The most effective laws would be those that motivate and empower people. Empowering a gun owner to access a background check for a private sale is empowering. Requiring folks to register, pay fees and buy insurance is not empowering nor do they inspire cooperation.

Gun-control really needs to give up on the idea of banning damn near anything.

The pro-control needs to lose the idea that semi-auto guns which look like ARs, AKs, M-16s... are any more dangerous than any other semi-auto ranch/varmint gun of equivalent caliber.

We've had several horrific domestic terror attacks some with firearms. In no case was .50 cal used to shoot down an aircraft. Let go of that one for good.

Finally, give up on the idea that the Second Amendment covers only state run militias. The individual rights view is now the law of the land.

[Duckhunter935]

1. They tried the new name thing

The poll tested "gun safety" is now what they try and pass off. Funny is they do not have any Hun safety programs and are against the ones I posted here and in GD

[Jerry442]

2. OK, you opened the door here.

What gun regulation mileiu do you favor?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. I infer you mean 'What gun regulations do I favor in addition to what we have?'

I like the idea of having local law enforcement offer cheap BGCs to private folks that wants to sell a gun and know the buyer is not prohibited. Not mandatory but an option. This empowers people.

I like the idea of law local law enforcement or even private companies register your guns (on a voluntary basis) in case they're lost or stolen. This could help police investigating some crimes if these guns are recovered.

And since the door is open, some rules that we have that ought to change:
- open the NFA registry of title 2 (full-auto) firearms anything made in 1985 is materially the equivalent to the same model made in 1987. Closing it at 1986 is arbitrary and capricious.
- allow suppressors to be sold OTC as they are in most of Europe.

Now that I've shared, how would those sit with you? What ideas do you have?


(Corrections thanks to gejohnston)

[gejohnston]

4. quick correction

the registry was closed in 1986 and it applied only to machine guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Dyslexia

Yeah, that's the problem. Yes full-autos are what I was thinking of, machine guns in ATF venacular.

Thanks

[Duckhunter935]

6. I agree with you on suppressors

That rule is stupid

[sarisataka]

8. But we have a self-proclaimed

Firearm expert who assured us suppressors are nothing more than Barrel extensions and don't reduce the noise one bit.

Of course if that is the case one wonders why oppose removing them from the NFA list?

[Duckhunter935]

9. Then there are the other experts

That say the make them totally silent, lol

[Jerry442]

12. Sorry, real life intervened.

It appears from your suggestions that you favor a small-L libertarian approach to gun regulation. (Not intended to be an insult, since most Americans are small-L libertarians on a lot of subjects.) The problem with this approach is that there doesn't seem to be any way of addressing the concerns of people who feel that too many guns are being pushed at people who probably shouldn't have them -- that gun makers and sellers are often in a position similar to predatory lenders, pursuing profit through practices that make a bad outcome likely for everybody else.

As far as fixing the NFA, I haven't heard a lot of interest in that from any side. There don't seem to be that many civilian full-autos out there nor much interest in putting more out there nor taking the ones out there away -- nobody seems to be all that dissatisfied with the status quo.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Yeah, life does that

(No insult inferred )

I suppose I'm small-L on a some things one being guns. I look at gun laws being the answer to 'How can the government help a regular person to do something they think is right?'

Here's my example: Suppose Phil and Mary have a gun shop. They sell a variety of guns from revolvers to ARs to hunting guns. One day a guy shows up at the counter and asks to see their smallest pistol in .22 cal. They show a Ruger priced at $400. Mary gets the ATF forms while Phil gets a box .22 and the manufacturer's packing for the Ruger. Once the customer completes the 4473 and presents ID, Phil tells him that it's against the law for him to sell a gun to a Florida resident at his shop in New York. The customer looks upset but thanks Phil and leaves the store. Mary asks, "Why did you look so nervous telling that guy you couldn't sell him the Ruger?" Phil says, "Because I had an idea why he wanted the gun when I saw his name." Phil hands her the 4473 with the name Joseph Merlino.

Without a law to fall back on, what does Phil say to Skinny Joey about not wanting to sell him a gun that may be used in a mob hit?

IMO, ideologically, every law on the books represents a loss of liberty for each person subject to the law. I believe it's a good thing to refuse to sell weapons to convicted criminals that have a violent history.

The fact is collecting, hunting, target shooting and self-defense are all legal activities. Many folks don't like guns and maybe they have good reasons. I accept the idea that a property owner can dictate the weapons policy for his place of business or residence.

I'm sure there are some folks who would tell Mr Merlino, "Look, I can't sell you this gun on the books, but I get another delivery the day after tomorrow. Another gun of similar model may be "lost" or "never shipped". The price is $1200."

Accepting reality allows the law to focus on empowering the individual rather than inspiring each of us to accept being treated as children who need permission.

Fix the registry... Yeah, I don't see that going anywhere either. Both sides in the discussion need to accept the nature of politics being compromise.

Have a nice weekend/holiday.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. When you have a few...

...I was hoping you'd share some thoughts on my post #3.

Thanks

[pablo_marmol]

10. He responded to your question. Why won't you respond to his?

Rhetorical question.

[pablo_marmol]

11. So, here's my thought:

Just. Stop. Lying.

It will take generations for the electorate to forget all of the lies we've told on the topic of gun violence. But we could stop some of the bleeding if we'd JUST. STOP. LYING.

STOP LYING about "assault weapons". STOP LYING about "gun show loopholes". STOP LYING about a non-existent "gun violence epidemic". STOP LYING about "guns for everyone everywhere". JUST. STOP. LYING.

Recall the "first do no harm" rule? Well.......DERP! It applies to politics too! Recall how Jon Stewart famously smacked down the bloviators on Crossfire.......particularly with his line "Stop hurting America"? When Democrats lie w/regard to the gun violence issue, we contribute to the polarization that is tearing our nation apart.

So restriction supporters........just STOP LYING.

[Matrosov]

14. They ought to wise up

The biggest problem with us 'controllers' is that 90% wouldn't know the difference between a muzzle and a clip.