My compromise for gun control

Y'all realise this is all hypothetical, right?

 

Not sure, I mean if you have a gun in part, main or in whole to bring down a ‘tyrannical government’ you must believe that will happen because otherwise you would not want the gun.

I mean if you didn’t believe that your political opponents were out to get you and the only way you can protect yourself is to be armed – then you wouldn’t be armed.

You wouldn’t have a gun if you didn’t believe you should and could stop your political opponents from doing thing you didn’t like.

So the question is who are the political opponents and when do you start killing them?

I mean I heard one gun lobbyist saying they – ‘wouldn’t allow the US to become socialist’

So in that the political opponent would be those this person thought of as socialists and the reason why they would begin killing such people was when they brought in what this person thought of as ‘socialist’ policies.

But that begs the question who does this person consider a socialist and what they consider socialist policies, I mean many claim that universal healthcare systems are ‘socialist’ would its enactment be the thing that sparks the insurrection for that person, the call for him to begin killing….well who…?

I mean until we know who and what these gun people are opposed to how can we understand their stance and why they feel the desperate need to be armed.

 

It's (ab)used as a real argument to oppose improvements in gun regulation.

 

Literally reaching for straws..

 

Better be paper straws.

 

Well, it was just one out of 4 proposals I offered.

Like I said, don't confuse a proposed compromise for my own wants. I don't want mental evaluations for gun ownership, you do. A compromise would be something similar to OP or what I recently said about free mental evals for everyone. This is supposed to be a something like a draft paper.

Simple, close friends/relatives report his tendencies to a doctor or law enforcement if it's bad enough. From there, the doctor or law enforcement can take the legal steps to seem someone a danger to himself or others. Most mass shooters already showed such dangerous tendencies but law enforcement didn't act on it

Sure, if those responsibilities aren't prohibitely expensive or time consuming. Basic gun safety shouldn't be any more expensive than getting a driver's license.

Again, I'm not a psychologist, so I wouldn't know how to answer that.

 

How so?

 

He's not here right now I guess, but my thinking is many folks on the gun-owner "bandwagon" if you will only want to hear themselves talk in the argument. And for instance maybe choose their side of the issue for convoluted reasons. Like for example what if someone owns a gun not for protection but for some sort of bragging rights. They are a vocal member of that community, but they're head really isn't in the game because you and I know (and I say that because I'm guessing I know where you're coming from as I know a family of responsible gun owners/hunters from my childhood friendship circle) there are certain aspects of ownership that you want to avoid. Like having some weird power complex around owning a gun. Taking it in the car may become an issue as one encounters frustration in traffic.

I'll always remember the time an ex-policeman, a chief no less, pointed his weapon at me in the middle of the street. Well, he had yelled with his window up something. I don't know what he said but he had stopped and saw fit to yell because I had run a light. I figured it was none of his business and didn't know who he was. He should have called the police if he thought something needed to happen. I believe he didn't do that (call the police) because he had his gun with him and a power ideology... I don't know, man. Anyway what happened next was pretty dumb. He was yelling at me and I stood up out of my car. He claimed to the police (he called them after... so did I) that he then feared for his life. He pointed his weapon at me. I dodged behind my vehicle very instinctively (it was weird) and then got in my car and drove fast! That's when I called the police.

Well what the shit is he doing yelling?! He's not minding his own business. He's toting and looking for some way to intervene? I don't get it! It pisses me off to this day. I told the police I wanted to bring charges but they said he didn't do anything wrong!

Anyway. That's my story. If we had a better law against him pointing his firearm, I might have seen justice that day!

 

This is called a "Red Flag" law.... You know, that thing you guys don't want.

Just thought I'd clarify.

 

I like the concept, I don't like the potential execution. I believe that if there's a way to weed out the gun hating relative or spiteful SO misusing the system, I'd be for it.

 

Yeah... That's called a Red Flag law.

 

That's so few and far between though, isn't it? Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater...

 

Mac

But as I have explained this doesn’t seem like a compromise

And I pointed out that none of them seemed to be compromises, I am happy to go through it again if you wish.

Thing is that your proposals don’t seem thought through, I mean you have been in several gun threads over your time here and these idea are similar to other ideas that have been presented over the years. They didn’t stand up well then and they don’t now.

 

Mac

So far you have wanted to have enforced evaluations of everyone then you have backed off on that in favour of free mental health exams that anyone can take but don’t have to. But that really waters down the supposed ‘compromise’ by taking away the reassurance that people that have ‘mental’ problems would be weeded out from been allowed to own a gun.

That doesn’t address what I’ve said.

You seem to be saying that you really don’t care about the proposals YOU put forward, thinking them weak, unworkable and indefensible.

Please don’t tell me that they were just an example of sham compromise meant to try and bamboozle people into thinking the gun lobby want to compromise when they don’t.

How is it a compromise to burden a large majority of people with increased taxes and enforced time consuming and invasive medical examinations and background checks that only serve the interests of a minority of people that are making a consumers choice?

But as pointed out that really waters down the whole point of the proposal as it is unlikely to weed out the irresponsible or those with mental health problems. I mean those with mental health problems are the kind of irresponsible, chaotic and paranoid people that are least likely to submit themselves to examination.

And those that think there is a government conspiracy to take away their guns are unlikely to join in on government programme that could result in them not been allowed to own guns.

 

Mac

But how do you find that out, it seems to me that if it is after the fact it is probably too late.

This has been put forward a number of times by the gun lobby and every time it didn’t really stand up to scrutiny, besides the obvious one that even you bring up that it would be open to abuse.

But let us take your own words – ‘I'm not a psychologist, so I wouldn't know how to answer that’.

Yet you want friends and relatives to make psychological assessments.

You want people to have their friends and relatives arrested, forcibly detained and examined against their will, on a possibility. Would they have to know in advance that they had a gun or were thinking of getting a gun, when should the step in. what rights do the accused have?

In the UK we have a universal healthcare, welfare and social services systems in place to help those with mental problems and we have a system in place to ‘section’ those that might be of harm to themselves and others.

But even with that we don’t get everyone and above all we don’t have easy access to guns in this country so those dealing with those with problems don’t have to fear they will be shot.

 

Mac

It seems to me that 30% of people are making a consumers choice which has little value to society as a whole and can even be shown to be actual detrimental on it? So why shouldn’t they accept the responsibilities that go with choosing to have a gun and be subject to the mandatory checks you suggested?

LOL oh come on mate one moment you seriously put forward a proposal that would have enforced the whole adult population of the US to have expensive and time consuming medical examinations then you turn round and say don’t want than just for people that make the consumerist choice to own a gun.

Ok so to drive a car on the public highway you need a licence and need to be fit to drive (people in the UK can be excluded for bad eyesight or if they are prone to seizures etc) so may need medical certificate. Then there is insurance (I believe that is on average around $1,500 in US) and of course you must keep the car road worthy (in the UK you need to pass an annual MOT test that is around £35 and then the coast of any repairs).

 

Mac

Isn’t the burden on them (who want lethal weapons that can easily kill people) to show everyone else that they are responsible people who will not use such guns to hurt others.

And if that was refused doesn’t that beg the question of why, of what do they have to hide?

I mean if someone puts forward as the only or major reason for wanting a gun is so that if they so desire they can murder other US citizens that they might see as their political opponents, is that likely to make others feel comfortable with their gun ownership?

Again, I'm not a psychologist, so I wouldn't know how to answer that.

That just seems like evasion

And as pointed out above does not fit in with your idea to have friends, relatives, neighbours and other members of the general public to be amateur psychologists

So would you support the brother that got their sibling forcibly examined for mental problems because they had put forward at the Thanksgiving table that their major reason for wanting a gun was so that, if they so desired, they could murder other US citizens that they saw as their political opponents?

 

The offer (the supposed benefits to those wishing for gun control)

Universal background checks

In the UK you have to undergo a background check for certain jobs and for that we have the DBS system - The DBS enables organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain work, especially involving children or vulnerable adults, and provides wider access to criminal record information through its disclosure service for England and Wales.

Disclosure and Barring Service - Wikipedia

But an individual or the organisation has to pay for it and it can cost up to £40 ($52)

Now the adult population of the US is supposedly some 255 million so the cost if that was used would be 255 x 50 = 12750 million dollars a year

So 12.7 billion

That seems like an extra economic burden been put on the majority of Americans to basically benefit the consumer choice of a minority.

Why shouldn’t that minority pay for the coverage seeing as it is connected to their consumer choice?

Anyone can look up background checks

I’m unsure how this is a compromise, a compromise over what?

Mandatory training that is free, or conversely, opt in training for a tax benefit.

Again this seems like gun owners are getting a benefit paid for by others for their own consumer choice.

Mandatory mental evaluations

This proposal seemed to have been withdrawn once it was pointed out that it would mean forcing people to take medical examinations against their will.

It would have also been incredibly expensive, such a medical examination would be far more expensive than a background check.

Let’s say a conservative estimate of $2000 per examination would mean 255 million x 2000 would be 510,000,000,000– 510 billion dollars a year (the military spending of the US in 2019 was 609 billion).

The proposal now is that people can have free mental health exams that anyone can take of their own free will.

But it seems to me that really waters down the supposed ‘compromise’ by taking away the reassurance that people that have ‘mental’ problems would be weeded out from been allowed to own a gun. It seems to me that those with mental health problems are the kind of irresponsible, chaotic and paranoid people that are least likely to submit themselves to examination.

And those that think there is a government conspiracy to take away their guns are unlikely to join in on government programme that could result in them not been allowed to own guns.

It would be so much easier (and less expensive) to just have mandatory tests for those that are basically making the consumerist choice to have a gun?

*

It seems to me that what is been proposed are not benefits but extra burdens been imposed on non-gun owners and in exchange what gun owners get for these extra burdens are things many in the gun lobby want –

To be able to carry guns anywhere

No extra gun control measures than those in the proposals

No controls on any type of firearm

No controls on any type of firearm accessory.

*

The person that put these proposals forward said ‘no good compromise favors one side’ but when looked at this seems very one sided and all in the gun lobby’s favour.

 

The proposals I put forward is supposed to be a launching point to which we can come to a better compromise. They may work as is for some, they may work with some changes for others, and some might throw out the whole thing. There are already members here who stated that they would be for some, if not all of the proposals in OP from both sides of the argument. If you have a better compromise than OP, feel free to state it.

So what do you propose as a compromise?

 

You’re misguided in that you think anti-gunners are willing to compromise. They’re not. They only make demands and aren’t willing to give anything up in return.