Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[bUU]

Well sure, but I would have to hear the reasoning before I could say whether any particular disagreement was reasonable or not.

And you have (even if you would prefer to try to make it seem like you haven't). Thanks.

Since I'm posting about what won't work, let me suggest something that might at least start things down the right direction. I don't support registration in any way shape or form. I wouldn't, however, be opposed to a system that allows me (via some anonomous mechanism) to do a background check on a private party sale and prove that has happened to prevent guns getting in the hands of the wrong people. That would close the "gun show loophole" without many of the negatives I see to requiring registration.

Why should anyone who isn't in favor of gun believe that that will address the guns already out there, circulating in the black market, better than the solutions proposed by gun control advocates, like the Brady Campaign?

But if the "solutions" don't fix the problem or make the problem worse, then yes, I would say doing nothing is better than making things worse.

But if the solutions would make things even a little better, as they likely would (according to many reasonable people who disagree with you), then doing nothing is the wrong thing to do.

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Blackdog Lin.
It is not a gun issue; it is a mental health issue.

You keep right on believing what you believe, however, IT IS A GUN ISSUE/PROBLEM.

Where lies the magic bullet in the empty "mental health" argument?

- All mentally unstable people out of the 300 million plus populace in America, are suddenly going to be fished-out and treated?

- Or, help will be conveniently dropped-off on the doorsteps (and laps) of all mentally ill people to assure guns, won't end up in their hands?

- Or, magically, because there's additional help (programs) being provided to mentally ill people, no new cases of mental illness will surface in the future? Problem over, problem solved?

- Or, those who are sane today, are guaranteed to remain sane tomorrow, all because of new initiatives?

Come now...

[Yossarian]

But if the solutions would make things even a little better

Like what?

[bae]

Since I'm posting about what won't work, let me suggest something that might at least start things down the right direction. I don't support registration in any way shape or form. I wouldn't, however, be opposed to a system that allows me (via some anonomous mechanism) to do a background check on a private party sale ...

And all they have to do to make this work is to allow you some form of access to the already-existing federal NICS instant-check system, which is already used by dealers. It would be relatively trivial, they already have apps and everything, and I don't think it would cost particularly much.

When I engage in private-party sales or purchases myself, I demand to see a state CCW permit from the other party as a proxy for the NICS, since that is sufficient evidence of an even greater level of scrutiny. Since Federal and State law already prohibit me from selling to a whole range of prohibited persons.

[Midwest]

And all they have to do to make this work is to allow you some form of access to the already-existing federal NICS instant-check system, which is already used by dealers. It would be relatively trivial, they already have apps and everything, and I don't think it would cost particularly much.

When I engage in private-party sales or purchases myself, I demand to see a state CCW permit from the other party as a proxy for the NICS, since that is sufficient evidence of an even greater level of scrutiny. Since Federal and State law already prohibit me from selling to a whole range of prohibited persons.

I've never sold a firearm face to face, but agree completely with your approach.

[bae]

But if the "solutions" don't fix the problem or make the problem worse, then yes, I would say doing nothing is better than making things worse.

It is also important to note that solutions typically have a cost. In the rights and freedoms of non-problem citizens. In the time and attention of governmental agencies. In money and resources.

"If it saves just one life" is not sufficient. In a world of non-infinite resources, the cost/benefit analysis must be done.

We could probably reduce "gun violence" to zero if we assigned an armed guard to follow around each of us 24x7 to keep us safe, and an armed guard to watch the armed guard to make sure the first guard wasn't getting out of line, and a guard to watch the guard's guard, and so on. It would save one child's life, almost certainly.

Meanwhile, our bridges collapse, our roadways deteriorate, our populace doesn't have access to healthy food, and a thousand other things happen that demand our non-infinite resources and attention.

[bUU]

Like what?

Are you unaware of the details of the proposals I referred to earlier in the message you replied to? Or are you yet again just looking for an excuse to post a reply ignoring the existence of reasonable disagreement to that which you believe?

I'll test which is the case, by providing this list for you, and seeing whether you respond by acknowledging that reasonable people disagree with you, or by refusing to acknowledge that reasonable people disagree with you. (And I find it rather disappointing that your rhetorical tactics in this thread force me and other who disagree with you to post in such a manner, me clearly outlining this dichotomy for you, and others almost-deferentially apologizing for disagreeing with you.)

Criminal background checks on all gun sales
Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)

[Midwest]

Why should anyone who isn't in favor of gun believe that that will address the guns already out there, circulating in the black market, better than the solutions proposed by gun control advocates, like the Brady Campaign?

I'm proposing a potential solution that doesn't impede the rights of law abiding citizens. Black market guns, by their nature, won't be impacted by new reg's anyway.

But if the solutions would make things even a little better, as they likely would (according to many reasonable people who disagree with you), then doing nothing is the wrong thing to do.

Sometimes you have to do a cost benefit analysis. We could elminate all vehicle deaths by banning vehicles, but the benefits of transport outweigh the lives saved. Similarly, we could eliminate almost all DUI's through an interlock device in all cars, but again the costs and rights trampled in the process outweigh the benefits.

I'm for reasonable policies that don't impact the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun bans aren't one of those policies in my opinion.

Incidentally, the policians seem to be focused on taking certain guns from the common man and leaving them only in the hands of police/military (and of course their bodyguards). Interestingly, I can name 3 recent cases where police within a 50 mile radius of me have lost loaded firearms (one of which was full auto). Haven't heard any cries to ban guns from the police. I'm fairly certain that the parties who stole the weapons in 2 of 3 cases won't be worrying about new laws passed. Maybe we should ban police guns for the children.

[bUU]

I'm proposing a potential solution that doesn't impede the rights of law abiding citizens.

So are those who propose more than what you've outlined.

Sometimes you have to do a cost benefit analysis.

Given that what you're trying to protect in saying so isn't an unalienable right, the cost benefit analysis would start with determining whether safeguarding that privilege is worthwhile, vis a vis the potential costs.

Incidentally, the policians seem to be focused on taking certain guns from the common man and leaving them only in the hands of police/military (and of course their bodyguards).

I worry quite about about how much of the anti-gun regulation rhetoric comes from groups that include many people who I would worry about the government's ability to protect me from. Reasonable people disagree about whether individual gun owners are more or less trustworthy than police officers. My opinion is that the odds favor trusting the police and distrusting those who oppose the measures I outlined in a message, above.

[Midwest]

Are you unaware of the details of the proposals I referred to earlier in the message you replied to? Or are you yet again just looking for an excuse to post a reply ignoring the existence of reasonable disagreement to that which you believe?

I'll test which is the case, by providing this list for you, and seeing whether you respond by acknowledging that reasonable people disagree with you, or by refusing to acknowledge that reasonable people disagree with you. (And I find it rather disappointing that your rhetorical tactics in this thread force me and other who disagree with you to post in such a manner, me clearly outlining this dichotomy for you, and others almost-deferentially apologizing for disagreeing with you.)

Criminal background checks on all gun sales
Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)

Exactly what would be the point of tightening the CCW restrictions? So people don't get proper training and carry illegally? I wasn't aware that any of the shooters in the recent tragedies was a CCW holder or for that matter that CCW holders (as a group) were causing significant problems.