The Gun Control THINK TANK thread

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Think of this as a round table discussion or think tank where in which the question of gun control has already been decided, and we are now just brain storming on how to go about it and how far (but not all the way to banning them).

SHW didn’t intend for this to become a discussion on why there should be a gun ban, or even if there should be. Read the OP.

As to the idea thus far presented about having a finger scan, it certainly wouldn’t be 100% fool proof, however, I can see how it would have the potential to help reduce the sale and use of illegal guns. Anyone have any counter thoughts or ideas on the subject?

[brien]

Hi SHW; Good to hear from you as well.

What would be your suggestion(s) in regards to making it more difficult for criminals to get posession of guns? Looking forward to hearing them.

1st) Firearms Laws: All laws that affect the possession, use, and carrying of firearms should be reviewed to close loopholes like the one that allowed Cho to purchase his firearms. Only qualified law abiding citzens who are capable of the safe and qualified operation of firearms are granted a permit to carry and operate concealed firearms.

2nd) Prosecute violent Criminals. The DOJ needs to FULLY prosecute violent criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. The laws need to refocus upon the criminal who uses a gun in the commission of a crime. The prisons are full of non violent offenders who are incarcerated for non violent crimes. These laws need to be reviewed and changed so we make our priority to incarcerate violent offenders first and foremeost. No plea bargains for those who use guns in the commission of a crime. No suspended sentences. No concurrent sentences. No parole. 15 years means 15 years. No revolving doors of justice.

3rd) Law Enforcement. The Legislature(s) need to create new laws and revise existing laws that punish those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime to reflect society's outrage and intolerance of this type of violent activity. Punishment needs to be swift, exact and merciless. Ist offense of a crime involving a gun, 10 -15 years. 2nd offense 15 years to 30 years. Third offense 30 years to life. No early release, no parole, no suspended sentences, no concurrent sentences.

4) Deterrence through absolute swift and certain justice. When criminals, and those who are potential criminals, realize they will be dealt with severely and swiftly by the DOJ, and that they will do hard time in the penetentiary for crimes involving firearms, it will generally act as a deterrent for the average person. Sociopaths not withstanding, the average person contemplating a crime will weigh the averages of getting caught, and when they realize there is a chance they may go to prison for a minimum of up to 10 years, first offense, they will probably reconsider using a firearm to aid them in the commission of that crime. I realize people wouldn't commit crimes if they thought they would be caught, but they must understand when they are caught. justice will be certain, swift and severe. Strict laws and law enforcement penaties will help the potential criminal change his mind when considering using a firearm during a crime.

5th Focus upon the actual problem: Society must renew its focus upon criminals and not law abiding citizens. This is most likely why we are not gaining ground on the problem of criminals using firearms during the commission of a crime. The US currently focuses upon feel good legislation that restricts the lawful firearm owner and not the criminal. This priority is backwards. When we focus upon the criminal, we can solve the problem of firearms abuse, and there would be no need to consider banning firearms from law abiding citizens.

[ZNFYRH]

Heather

I am fully aware of the OP and have even PM'd SHW about it.

How can you fix where you are if you don't know how you got there?

How about I follow the chain of causality forward a bit this time.

I said that the problem is that, at some point, all guns were legally acquired.

How about some kind of renewal period or recertification for those who own a firearm?

Just as you have to bring your vehicle to get inspected before you can renew your registration, what if you have to qualify at a firing range with your specific weapon(s) in order to keep your license to own them?

And to go with it, if you don't have a "title" for transfer of ownership for your weapon, then you are severely punished.

This punishment addresses those who would sell illegally as well as those who don't take the necessary precautions to secure their firearm.

Hopefully the light bulbs blinked on at this... there is a reason I cited the "former legal owner" aspect.

[brien]

How about some kind of renewal period or recertification for those who own a firearm? Just as you have to bring your vehicle to get inspected before you can renew your registration, what if you have to qualify at a firing range with your specific weapon(s) in order to keep your license to own them?

Once again, ZNFYRH, you are focusing upon people who haven't broken any law. In fact, you are focusing upon those who are compliant with current firearms laws. Why are you trying to regulate law abiding citizens who don't break any laws. Society needs to focus on lawbreakers and punish them, not law abiding citizens.

[Heather]

ZNFYRH, your registration and renewal idea is an interesting one, however, how would we control those who do not renew? The owner could easily use the “I lost it” excuse.

Brien, I like all of the ideas you have presented and agree.

[ZNFYRH]

brien

You aren't understanding the point I'm making, so I'll repeat myself.

At some point, a law abiding citizen finds the benefit of illegally selling a firearm worth the risk. Or they are not taking the precautions to prevent the theft of the firearm.

Why is it I constantly have to repeat things like this?

The whole point is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Since, by definition, you can't control the criminals, then you need to control the people who own guns.

Besides, I absolutely think gun-owners should have to be accountable for their weapon on a regular basis, as well as have basic weapons training and be able to hit a 30 yard firing range target a minimum of, let's say, 10 times out of 30.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Heather ZNFYRH, your registration and renewal idea is an interesting one, however, how would we control those who do not renew? The owner could easily use the “I lost it” excuse.

Punish the loss of a firearm with the same harsh punishment that would be used for someone who sold a firearm illegally.

You don't "lose" a gun.

Put it in perspective... a gun is a tool designed for the sole purpose of killing people. Those people who possess such a tool should be incredibly careful to ensure that tool isn't stolen.

If the fine for losing your gun is $10,000, then you can simply ask someone what precautions they would take with a $10,000 bill. That would put it in perspective for them real fast.

[brien]

At some point, a law abiding citizen finds the benefit of illegally selling a firearm worth the risk. Or they are not taking the precautions to prevent the theft of the firearm

Then punish that individual when they commit the crime. We can control criminals when we catch and prosecute them. We can't expect to control people before they commit crimes otherwise you will have so many laws, people will act upon what they can do by law rather than what they can't do by law. I don't think our society works in this manner.

[brien]

Punish the loss of a firearm with the same harsh punishment that would be used for someone who sold a firearm illegally

We already have laws and penalties for people who don't notify the authorities immediately when a firearm is lost or stolen. We don't need outrageous fines that the average person couldn't pay anyway.

btw, once can lose a firearm. I can be sailing, have a firearm on deck, and the boat can pitch and the firearm falls overboard. One firearm lost.

Besides, I absolutely think gun-owners should have to be accountable for their weapon on a regular basis, as well as have basic weapons training and be able to hit a 30 yard firing range target a minimum of, let's say, 10 times out of 30

.

What does this have to do with the problem of criminals using firearms in the commission of a crime. How does it affect the problem of crimes involving firearms?

The whole problem of firearms in the US stems from their illegal use in the commission of a crime. Otherwise, we would have nothing to debate here.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Every gun acquired illegally was once a legal gun.

Valid point, and one that goes against the logic of controlling firearms.

When firearms are controlled, and only the military, police and special government agents are allowed access, their storage facillities become prime target number one.

What does this mean? Instead of a black market consisting mainly of snub-nosed .38 revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, semi-auto hunting and assault rifles, and hunting rifles/shotguns, you get a black market flooded with military spec, fully-automatic weapons that originate from the storage warehouses of manufacturers, hijacked supply trucks, or military bases with typical weak military base security.

This is a recipe for failure, and is the exact logical step that crime would take, and is the prime reason gun control will always fail if arms are allowed in those who use them to enforce law, or protect nations.

For those of you who laugh, and think, "yea, like people are going to steal guns from the military, police, national guard, border patrol, etc."

Richard Marcinko, ex-Navy Seal ran a military readiness team while in service to the nation. His goal was to check the security and protection of military bases around the world. His "findings" were generally ignored, squelched and written off, because it made all the military bases and commanders involved look like the sorry asses they were. Marcinkos teams decimated military security using common sense, criminal techniques, and terrorist operating plans. They directly threatened the promotion of career "generals, admirals and great leaders" groomed in ancient military thought, and this was unacceptable to the Joint Chiefs of staff who counted on that money for military funding. They couldn't afford Marcinkos black eye on the military, so they shut him up, railroaded him and put him the brig.

Richard Marcinko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Navy SEALs.com - Famous Navy Seals Richard Marcinko


There is no, not one iota, of logic in banning guns, or controlling guns in a world that relies on guns for national or police protection, and if provided any claimed "theory" I will thoroughly, and summarily shred it using facts, logic and solid proven history in the world.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

What ZNFYRH proposes seems good and very near the mark.

Whilst being non US and needing a firearms licence which is validated regularly by the police, I can only concur that if you own a killing device you must be not only responsible for it but give assurance that you are maintaining that responsibility.

In the UK, the nearest I can think of as relating to ZYNFYRH option is our cars which have to be licensed, like any guns. The cars have to insured and tested (after 3 years old for testing). All are held on a central database, if we do not re-licence annualy (their is a six month option as well) then we are responsible for informing the authorities that it is no longer on the road. Failure to do so is an immeadiate fine £2000, ($4000) which makes inaction a very stupid option. Plus the police can come around and check.

Guns are not toys, they demand respect, they demand maintaining, a dirty gun wil easily kill its handler.

You might like to consider the control of bullets and calibre of gun. No way should semi automatic weapons be needed as a form of defence.
Plus as others have illuded before granting anyone a licence they should be able to demonstrate they can handle a gun sensibly and properly and have an independant voucher of their safety an employer professional friend or someone of agreeable and recognised authority.
Responsible US citizens should not shirk at this and it would allow their rights.
those who are not responsible should be prosecuted immeadiatly under a gun control law, over and bove any crime.

[Heather]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Put it in perspective... a gun is a tool designed for the sole purpose of killing people.

Guns are purchased for reasons other than to kill another person, take for example: hunting.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready There is no, not one iota, of logic in banning guns, or controlling guns in a world that relies on guns for national or police protection, and if provided any claimed "theory" I will thoroughly, and summarily shred it using facts, logic and solid proven history in the world.

Os, do you think that the illegal use of guns could or should be controlled better?

[Heather]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel Whilst being non US and needing a firearms licence which is validated regularly by the police, I can only concur that if you own a killing device you must be not only responsible for it but give assurance that you are maintaining that responsibility.

I see a problem with this argument however. How do you define a killing device? Should we start having to check-in and recheck our kitchen knifes because those could be used to kill someone?

[Kamehameha34]

Aside from the debate on banning facism or whether or not to proscribe facism, for those of you who are in support of less facist laws and how to lessen the damages caused by facism, what ideas could you put forth to aid in controlling facism so that that damage caused by it to the constitution is limited in scope?

Think of this as a round table discussion or think tank where in which the question of facism has already been decided, and we are now just brain storming on how to go about it and how far (but not all the way to banning it).

[ZNFYRH]

Before I address the responding posts, let me just say this:

We know we can't control the people. So we need to control how the tool gets into the people's hands.

This is a tool that has no other purpose than killing.

We have to have licensing, inspections, maintenance, and re-certification just to drive a car. Yet there are no stringent requirements on the most efficient, hand-held method of killing known to man?

brien

For those citizens who truly want to own a firearm, strict regulations give them no pause. For those who are irresponsible, these regulations ensure that they are punished for their irresponsibility and then prevent that person, who is now proven to have screwed up, from acquiring another firearm.

I realize you don't think society shouldn't work that way, but it's not really working the way it is now, is it?

To slightly alter the colloquialism... it's broke, and it needs fixing.

Apparently citizens aren't being responsible for one of their freedoms. The only way to correct this is to either remove the freedom or regulate that freedom.

Quote by: brien btw, once can lose a firearm. I can be sailing, have a firearm on deck, and the boat can pitch and the firearm falls overboard. One firearm lost.

Would you leave a $10,000 bill out on the deck of a boat?

Osborn

You slipped into the anti-gov't thing again.

But the point you are making, beneath it all, is that if only law enforcement has the guns, then the criminals who want them will target law enforcement with violence or money.

Putting aside the concerns we've already addressed about not trusting the armed authority figures, answer me this...

If the criminals don't have guns, how are they going to steal them?

It's great that an ex-Seal could breach military security, but we're not really talking about Special Forces, are we?

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Heather I see a problem with this argument however. How do you define a killing device? Should we start having to check-in and recheck our kitchen knifes because those could be used to kill someone?

A kitchen knife is a tool to cut slice or dice things in the kitchen, Yes a weapon though quite difficult to throw because the balance is often incorrect, It is good for stabs and slashing, but prime purpose is a cutting tool.

A gun kills mains or otherwise deposits bullets in targets. Its original purpose to propel a projectile rapidly through simple armour and pierce flesh creating wound. It some can be used as hammers or clubs, but are very poor in such use. Thus if not a killing device it must be an ornament or collectible peice and all ability to use as other than decoration taken away.

Knives carried in the public in the UK would lead to the police taking an interest. Unless it were at a fishing competiton or similar. We have very strict and historic views on the populace carrying weapons. Peasants are revolting and could usurp the authority of the Crown. As did the colonies, and look what happened to you ! :)

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Heather Guns are purchased for reasons other than to kill another person, take for example: hunting.

Sorry, I should have left off at killing. A hunting rifle is still designed to kill.

But that still falls under the type of regulation, licensing, maintenance, accountability, and re-certification that I was talking about.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Heather I see a problem with this argument however. How do you define a killing device? Should we start having to check-in and recheck our kitchen knifes because those could be used to kill someone?

I wanted to answer this one, but Arawn already basically said it.

You can't have a gun and say you're using it for something other than killing another thing.

It is a tool whose sole purpose is killing.

A car was designed to increase load, speed, and distance of transportation. But it can be used to kill.

A knife was designed to cut. Some for flesh, some for organic matter but not necessarily meat. But it can be used to kill.

Not only was a gun designed to kill, but you can't use it for anything else. It is not an effective tool for anything other than killing.

[5010]

Not all illegal guns can be traced back to legal manufacture. A criminal can manufacture his own gun and ammunition using simple tools and hardware.

Be aware that criminals can be among all aspects of society, even in government positions. Consider that even serial killers live double lives, working in ministry and social service. Consider that organised crime can infiltrate any agency.

This is why I don't think regulation is the answer, but rather education on prudent usage of guns and acceptance of the fact that there will be weapon-based crime as long as crime and human intelligence exist.

[ZNFYRH]

5010

The criminal-made firearm is a possibility, of course. But it's still an illegal firearm, and even today would incur a slew of legal repercussions.

Of those other people getting into or already part of an agency entitled to weapons, someone is always held accountable for those items.

Someone holds the keys to the armory. If they are not responsible for that for which they are held accountable, they deserve a harsh punishment.