My compromise for gun control

Mac

Why do you think there is such a high rate of gun related deaths and murders in the US compared with other comparable nations?

If it is not ease of access to guns what is it?

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

US –2011 10.3

Canada : 2.22

England and Wales – 0.22

France - 3.00

Germany – 1.10

Luxembourg - 2.02

Switzerland - 3.04

Homicides by any method per 100.000

US - 2011: 5.1

Canada : 1.6

England and Wales – 0.93

France : 1.2

Germany 0.8

Luxembourg 0.8

Switzerland 0.57

Gun related homicides per 100,000

US 2011: 3.6

Canada : 0.51

England and Wales 0.06

France - 0.22

Germany - 0.2

Luxembourg 0.62

Switzerland 0.16

 

Mac

We as I’ve pointed out you can own a gun in the UK, I could own a gun, but why would I?

But I should point out that ease of access is restricted and there is a EU minimum standard of gun control although countries in the EU can have even more stringent rules

European Firearms Directive - Wikipedia

I believe the main category (B) reads

Acquisition and possession allowed only by persons who have good cause and

• are at least 18 years of age, except in relation to the acquisition, other than through purchase, and possession of firearms for hunting and target shooting, provided that in that case persons of less than 18 years of age have parental permission, or are under parental guidance or the guidance of an adult with a valid firearms or hunting licence, or are within a licensed or otherwise approved training centre, and the parent, or an adult with a valid firearms or hunting licence, assumes responsibility for proper storage pursuant to Article 5a and[20]
• are not likely to be a danger to themselves or others, to public order or to public safety; the fact of having been convicted of a violent intentional crime shall be considered as indicative of such danger.[20]
• subject to prior authorisation.[21]

*

But as pointed out European countries are not the US as I’ve said basically public safety laws are tailored to differing circumstances.

 

Mac

But as I say why would someone want a gun, as the EU directive states ‘Acquisition and possession allowed only by persons who have good cause’

What are the ‘good cause’ for many Americans wanting to own a gun?

I mean you talk of ‘assault weapons’ and if I read you correctly of people been able to own any type of firearm even military level firearms

You seem to be saying that people should have easy access to guns that can fire a lot of bullets very quickly – why would someone want that type of gun? They would seem to be not much use for hunting or vermin control, I would think a hand gun would be better for personal protection, the only thing that a military type weapon would be good for is a military situation, so why would say Joe blogs living in the suburbs need one?

Imagine the police interview or psychological assessment where Joe explains his ‘good cause’ for wanting a gun

I want a military weapon that can shoot lots of bullet very quickly and holds hundreds of rounds

I want a military weapon so I can protect myself

No I haven’t got a lot of enemies or have had a job where I made lots of enemies, I’m an accountant for a small plumbing firm and live in the suburbs.

Imagine if then Joe added that he wanted a military type weapons because he wanted to be able to kill his political opponents if he so desired.

Is that a 'good cause' to have a gun?

I mean I would say that would raise red flags with me as it denotes a certain paranoia in poor old Joe

*

Then think of it more widely – why do so many American gun owners think they need such lethal weapons to protect themselves, what have they done with their lives that they feel it warrants them owning such firepower, were as most Americans don’t?

 

Mac

Well according to the FBI the two main ways guns get into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal is through theft or a gun been passed on from a legal owner to an illegal one.

That is why in the proposals above there are suggested regulations to insure guns are held securely and responsibly, and that the right legal owner has possession of the correct gun.

It seems to me that even if personally vetted to have a gun they should also be responsible for making sure it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands

*

A gun owner would need an up to date licence and insurance to carry on owning a gun (been found owning a gun without these will result in fine or and been banned from owning a gun).

Mandatory records of all sells or transfers of all firearms and immediate destruction of any that are discovered to be not recorded.

Any gun kept at home, place of work or in a motor vehicle would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system).

People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun.

If a person loses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would result in a fine losing the owner’s gun license.

If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in a heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

 

6

I’m really unsure what you mean by this in a guns issue thread?

If it is again about guns owners been a protection against political oppression – I would ask the same question you keep evading which is –

Who do gun owners see as their political enemies and when would they beginning murdering them?

[edit] you seem to be implying that you think ‘the left’ is your political enemy – so when do you think it would be ok to begin murdering left wingers?

 

I didn't said that it wasn't because of ease of access. I said that object to gun control measures that hasn't been shown to work and put unnecessary burdens on law abiding people.

 

Maybe we should try them out for a little while and see if there is a perceivable difference. Perhaps over a trial period of one years or six months.

 

I was speaking specifically about so called assualt weapons. In most European countries, as long as you have a clean record, you can basically own anything short of fully automatic weapons. Unlike countries like Britain and Australia which bans entire classes of firearms. As to why would I want to own something like that, it's different for everyone, but for me, it's for self defense purposes and collecting.

 

I'm willing to try some of the proposals out for things like national reciprocity and other pro gun bills that aren't already established into law.

 

which one is national reciprocity?

 

Man found not guilty in Wilkinsburg backyard ambush that left 5 people, unborn baby dead

 

The ability for someone with a concealed carry permit to carry nation wide. Currently, certain states only allow permits from a select few if any. I think the main objection to national reciprocity is that each state has their standards to obtain a permit and thus, a permit holder in Florida might not have the same minimum requirements to obtain a permit in New York for example.

What we can do as a compromise and a test law is to have a special national carry permit with it's own standards and training requirements. We already do this with law enforcement. A cop in Florida can carry anywhere in the US whether on or off duty. However he must abide by any magazine/firearm law within the state he's visiting.

For the civilian version for the proposed law, a person must be able to pass the same background check and firearms training as law enforcement and he'll be able to carry anywhere as well. This would only apply to the national carry permit. States will still run their own carry permits as it exists now. In other words, my Florida carry permit will still be invalid in New York, but if I apply for a national carry permit, I can carry but will be restricted to New York laws pertaining to magazine limits and types of firearms I'm allowed there.

 

Mac

Well often you will not now if something will work or not until it is tried and the thing is on what rational grounds would you have not having them?

The list of gun proposals posted above all seems to have a rational basis why would you reject them?

 

Assault weapons.

‘the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines’ wiki

The image on the wiki page was this



To me that looks a lot like a military weapon

I’m sure I’ll be told otherwise like for one it is not fully automatic but I believe that can be easily overcome.

 

Mac

And as I pointed out only if they conform to the regulations which at the very minimum say a person should have a good reason for having one.

Again as I’ve said I could own a gun, but why would I want one, I have no good reason, I don’t hunt and I don’t fear that I’m going to be attacked.

And the very idea of having something like the gun pictured above would seem to me a bit absurd, I mean I don’t live in a war zone.

Also I’d be wondering why someone else wanted a gun and would want to be reassured they not only had a good reason but had been vetted and had it secured etc.

If they gave there reason as self-defence I’d want to know why they were so fearful and if it seemed justified or was paranoia, and if the latter I’d probably think they should not be the type of person owning a gun.

And I’d probably be straight on to the police if the person told me they had the gun so they would be able to kill their political opponents if they so desired.

 

Mac

Why are you so afraid of being targeted for attack so much more than the majority of Americans who don’t feel they need a gun to protect them? What is different about you than them?

Anyway what I was getting at is if someone had no real reason for owning a gun but just wanted one (say for a collection) is that a ‘good cause’ to have such lethal weapons and if it is just a consumers choice shouldn’t they be responsible for that choice in the protection of public safety whatever the expense in time and money that might cost.

It is about public safety.

 

Simple, not giving government unnecessary power. The government doesn't need to ban so called assualt weapons as we see in other countries.

I don't reject all of them, just some of them.

 

Not without a drill press. Also, there are commonly owned pistols that could be converted into full auto with the same ease/difficulty.

 

For one, I'm not afraid of anything. As to why I choose a firearm for my personal protection, it's the same reason why someone might take CPR classes or martial arts. Most people don't feel the need to take either, however, some of us like to have a skill/tool in our arsenal, no pun intended, to have a slight edge in the event CPR, Krav Maga, or a firearm would come in handy. Besides, some of us have jobs where the knowledge of CPR, martial arts, and weapons manipulation is essential.

If it is about public safety, then the government should provide the means to be able to pursue firearms ownership or general firearms knowledge.

 

The only compromise I can think of is if government and the people can both agree to a level disarmament like the US and Russia did with nuclear weapons.