A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides

I appreciate the thought and time you put into this VG and I for one would gladly support most of your “gives” to even come close to your “gets”.

Unfortunately, the title of this thread pretty much says it all and in such lies the problem we face in today’s society/political arena. 😟
 
Last edited:
Cain killed Able with a rock. Millions died from a stick and string/sword. Millions more since the invention of gun powder and millions killed with the use of gas.

Mental health is a problem but not one that will solve the desires of a handful of folks who want to kill. It may identify and help prevent some but not all. Those with the desire will find a means to accommodate.

I appreciate the time you put into your posts. But, more gun regulations on me, a law abiding engaged parent, is a non starter. I’m willing to talk resource improvement for parents, mental health, after school program access, hunter safety in the classroom, gun education, self defense, better wages for low income, and quality daycare.

Let’s work on the social portion first then revisit gun control if we need to.
 
Cain killed Able with a rock. Millions died from a stick and string/sword. Millions more since the invention of gun powder and millions killed with the use of gas.

Mental health is a problem but not one that will solve the desires of a handful of folks who want to kill. It may identify and help prevent some but not all. Those with the desire will find a means to accommodate.

I appreciate the time you put into your posts. But, more gun regulations on me, a law abiding engaged parent, is a non starter. I’m willing to talk resource improvement for parents, mental health, after school program access, hunter safety in the classroom, gun education, self defense, better wages for low income, and quality daycare.

Let’s work on the social portion first then revisit gun control if we need to.
I am not thinking this as leading gun control, I am viewing as trading a few items to get a few items. I would trade Universal Background Checks for killing most of NFA in a heartbeat.

I agree mental health/economic is more important and bigger driver, but to move things everybody in DC needs a win and everybody takes some loss.
 
A thought…Your prototypical mass shooter is a young (18), angry white male with a proclivity for guns. Kind of hits home thinking about the hunting tribe.

My wish list item is banning civilian possession of semi automatics. Constitutional originalist, perhaps. :)

I’m convinced this country is incapable of progress on reasonable gun control until two generations of voters die off and a more educated, less dogmatic cohort takes over.

The easy money bet right now is plenty of meaningless #thoughtsandprayers and absolutely zero progress.
What if Semi Auto’s were not banned but required a similar set of hoops to jump through such as purchasing a suppressor? That way folks could still own and enjoy them but it would be a commitment and take some serious time to acquire.


I would support making suppressors fully legal with no hoops in exchange for that.
 
Last edited:
1. The overwhelming majority of countries that permit personal gun ownership have onerous laws for the purchase, transfer, possession, and registration of firearms. I really enjoy the convenience of not having to navigate a mile of red tape every time I want to purchase, sell, or transfer of guns and ammunition. A comprehensive set of gun reforms seems good in theory, but my concern is we'd just end up like every other over-regulated country.
100% agree. I hate the FFL process.

For ease of use, I wish we had a nationwide licensing system that was recognized by all states. All license holders would be issued an ID and then the ATF would provide a limited user portal accessible via an app on your phone. I want to sell a gun to ElkFever2, you show me your license, I scan your QR code your profile pops up as "cleared", we do our transaction. I'd make it an opt in system, if you don't want to participate that's your choice you do the old FFL system.

MA has a pretty brutal licensing process, all said and done my biggest beef with the system is that at the end of the day there is no benefit other than the ability to "exercise my constitutional right," IMHO with that process, including the interview with the Mass Firearm bureau agent, I should be able to order a rifle on europtics and have it delivered to my house.

Current gun processes are stuck, by design, in the 1950s. I think gun owners could benefit from updating laws and regs.

3. Guns are tools. If we got rid of every gun in America tomorrow ALL the social rot remains. Socially disaffected persons will continue to turn to mass violence towards others, and they will use different tools. Drive trucks into crowds, poisons, explosives, whatever. Would there be less violence in our country? I doubt it. I anticipate we would see a dip in the lethality of violence, but perhaps less than we'd hope for.
These was definitely my opinion as well, though now I'm wondering if it's correct. Certainly we see other types of attacks around the world, and in the US... but they still aren't at the scale of US mass shootings. For instance if you aggregate Europe, you don't see parity between truck/poison/explosive/knife/ etc attacks with US shootings. In the US context we might, maybe it's a cultural thing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you look at deaths, death by handguns related to the problems associated with inner-city (and rural) poverty outpace deaths by AR by several orders of magnitude. The same can be said about successful suicides with firearms (handguns and shotguns in particular). Investing in mental health services, drug rehab services and economic development will save many more lives than an AR ban. Other than the obvious fundraising angle ARs provide to both sides, they just are really relevant to 95+% of the fatalities.
True. But the mass shootings that make national news typically involve high capacity magazines.
The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting killed 20 children between six and seven years old, and 6 adult staff members.
The shooting involved 156 shots fired.

The 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting killed 61 and injured 867 with over 1,000 shots fired.

Most recently, the school shooting in Texas killed 21 with the shooter having seven 30-round magazines.

From a political perspective, limiting high capacity magazines may be likely target sooner or later.
There was a 10-year ban on "assault weapons" from 1994-2004.
From one perspective, one might argue that the ban did not solve the problem.
From a different perspective, one might argue that most mass shootings have involved high capacity magazines.
 
Great post and insight. Unfortunately, I predict these shootings will become more common. The prevalence of drugs (legal and illegal), broken homes, loss of community, an ineffective mental health system, the proliferation of violent media (video games, movies, social media, music), and the erosion of a common morality seem to drive a lot of young men to do horrific things. As an inner city teacher, I have lost many students to the violence that pervades our community. As one who tries to follow Christ ( not always successfully), I think the more we abandon the idea to love one another and practice kindness the more our communities will decay. We all have a stake in this.
No law solves the problem. However, I would suggest:
-Raise the age to buy, own, and posses semiautomatic weapons to 26 except for active or former military and law enforcement.
-Create stiffer penalties for gun owner gross negligence that leads to a shooting. For example, leaving a loaded gun unsecured with kids in the house or car.
-Create a sin tax on violent media to fund mental health intervention and treatment.
- As hunters, encourage the gun industry to get away from all this "tacticool" crap. Analyze gun advertising and how it has changed over the past forty years. There is a better way to present our sport and the 2nd Amendment.
-Mandatory civil service between the ages of 18-20 for all able bodied men and women who do not join the military to encourage more societal cohesion and responsibility. Gun safety could be incorporated into this training. College students would not be exempt.

Great conversation. I appreciate the space this forum creates for civil discourse. If I offend, don 't worry. I am just a guy in Georgia with very little power or influence.
 
I have to show ID at a local liquor store but that doesn't create a data registry. I can get a ticket for speeding but even though my truck likely stores all kinds of info on speed etc, it doesn't report them to a federal log of all my speeding activity. There are all kinds of legally regulated activities that don't require long term tracking. Of course, it could be argued it would be better with the full tracking, but this is meant to be a list of compromises. For me, I am willing to tighten the current system up quite a bit, but not willing to go that far.
There are laws in place the prevent the Federal government from creating an electronic gun registry database. I presume the arguments are based on some fear of the big bad government becoming run by an autocrat and deciding to seize guns. This is what makes background check so onerous. It’s all paper. The argument is ridiculous in our current day. We can determine who owns a gun by looking at who buys hunting licenses or who uses credit cards to purchase ammo. Our entire lives are electronic. There is no way to make progress on any change when people won’t accept the reality of our modern lives. We willingly give up rights all the time. I’m not sure why that one is on your list.
A comprehensive set of gun reforms seems good in theory, but my concern is we'd just end up like every other over-regulated country.
You mean with less gun violence? Isn’t that the point?
 
What if Semi Auto’s were not banned but required a similar set of hoops to jump through such as purchasing a suppressor? That way folks could still own and enjoy them but it would be a commitment and take some serious time to acquire.


I would support making suppressors fully legal with no hoops in exchange for that.
My 1928 Remington model 24 22 long rifle is a semi automatic. How would this constitute needing a permit? How would you expect law makers to know the difference and apply it where it’s enforceable? As much as I want to like your post on the suppression part, the first part is almost impossible.
 
There are laws in place the prevent the Federal government from creating an electronic gun registry database. I presume the arguments are based on some fear of the big bad government becoming run by an autocrat and deciding to seize guns. This is what makes background check so onerous. It’s all paper. The argument is ridiculous in our current day. We can determine who owns a gun by looking at who buys hunting licenses or who uses credit cards to purchase ammo. Our entire lives are electronic. There is no way to make progress on any change when people won’t accept the reality of our modern lives. We willingly give up rights all the time. I’m not sure why that one is on your list.
Exactly, I doubt there are more than a handful of folks that have made all of their firearm/ammo/reloading supplies/hunting license purchases in cash.

A team from Mckinsey could probably identify 90% of gun owners in the country with the transaction databases from Visa and Mastercard. Yet for silly reasons gun owners are firmly against reaping any benefit from this information being out there.
 
The list is okay, I dont think that anything in there really solves anything though. Especially because of how thin the line is with red flag laws and due process.

One thing that I've been mulling over, which the 'me' of 5 years ago would hate me for, is expanding the graduation of firearm ownership rights.

On one hand I absolutely hate the continued deferment of rights of legal adults. I think history shows a fairly strong correlation of people "living down" to expectations about their age. The more you treat 18-21 year olds like they're not real adults, the more they embrace that mindset. I know the scientific consensus is that brains don't finish developing until 25 or so, and some here have mentioned that in correlation to firearms (restrict ownership until 25). I think continuing to push that will cause 21-25 year olds to embrace the stereotype that they don't have to mature yet. Keep in mind I'm just a few years beyond that window so I don't feel I'm out of touch with what that age is like.

All of that rambling to say this. We already restrict 18-21 year olds from purchasing handguns from an FFL (note that they arent federally restricted from owning one; I legally purchased a handgun from a private party here in NC at 19, including getting the purchase permit from the sheriff's department). Doing the same thing with modern sporting rifles (assault rifles is such a loaded term, although MSR is also a loaded term from the gun industry, but still) is something to strongly consider. Thats not going to address the wider firearms problem in the country, but it would certainly help to address shootings like the one that caused this thread to be started.

Regarding the list itself, I dont personally care very much about the UBC issue except for the logistics of it. Are we opening up NICS to non-FFLs or are we going to force everyone to go through an FFL? And what about permits? Currently, if your state's carry permit meets the standard then your carry permit functions in lieu of a background check. Are we throwing that out or keeping it? Those are kinda small questions but matter a great deal in how effective the measure is.

Not really sure what is up with the fully auto thing. No new fully auto firearms have entered legal circulation since 1986 and they are quite a bit more expensive than $1000. I'm assuming this is just a "feel good" measure for the sake of compromise but it seems pretty pointless to me. If that's what it took to get over-the-counter suppressors though I'd be all over it.
 
How about we start with how many of these mass shootings may have been prevented if government did their job? Many of the mass shooters were known, interviewed and cut loose even with social media posted violence statements? Red Flag laws go after folks on far less but yet the FBI, state and local law enforcement and even school officials fail to do whatever is required to restrict these known violent people? This is not a general across the board LEO bash so don't go down that road, this is directed at those who investigated and turned these people loose. We have a process that identifies high risk potential shooters, they are interviewed and yet this system fails to protect us. If someone trips a potential high risk shooter red flag, how the hell are they being turned loose?

We need answers on this egregious system failure before anything else can be considered IMO.
 
Interesting ideas. I have 4 thoughts:

1. Mental health is a societal problem and not a problem created by lawful gun owners. Therefore, I see no reason why gun owners should pay a tax to combat that massive problem. I would personally not support any taxes on gun owners to pay for mental health.

2. As written, your red flag construction is not too bad. however, my trust of lawmakers being what it is, I do not think it would survive in its current form. The best of intentions, but the law we get back would be written poorly and that scares the heck out of me.

3. Schools are chosen for 2 reasons. Shock value and ease of target. We need to dedicate some funding to securing our schools. We can discuss how, but the bottom line is they are too soft of a target and this must be addressed.

4. Ban the media from mentioning the creeps names. No perceived glory for them.
 
Do you really think that the government is capable of carrying out that list? I’m not criticizing your list, I’m just criticizing the idea that most incompetent bodies of people in the nation are capable of moving the ball on that.


Compromises don’t work when dealing with partisans.

We can’t even agree that during a labor shortage we should let more Mexicans in legally with work visas, while also working to keep the flow of illegal aliens and fentanyl down, while over 100,000 Americans die from OD a year.

One side wants no Mexicans. The other wants no limits to illegal Mexicans and are okay with overrunning the country with fentanyl to achieve it.


If they can’t compromise on something that would benefit almost every business, and on something that kills 100,000, instead of 400 people per year, they’re not going to compromise
 
There are laws in place the prevent the Federal government from creating an electronic gun registry database. I presume the arguments are based on some fear of the big bad government becoming run by an autocrat and deciding to seize guns. This is what makes background check so onerous. It’s all paper. The argument is ridiculous in our current day. We can determine who owns a gun by looking at who buys hunting licenses or who uses credit cards to purchase ammo. Our entire lives are electronic. There is no way to make progress on any change when people won’t accept the reality of our modern lives. We willingly give up rights all the time. I’m not sure why that one is on your list.
I largely agree, heck if bought via FFL it is just a warrant away from govt hands in the event of a crime anyway as they keep the paper for decades. Plus all the other data sources that can be inferences you referenced. But knowing it is a big deal for some I put it on a hopefully balanced list. Frankly I am not sure background checks really work much in the first place given the hundred of millions of firearms in circulation, but that is a “give” to “get” NFA strip down. Simply my internal horse-trading.
 
I've always wondered why you couldn't establish a Federal licensing program. To get your license, you need to pass a background check and provide references, then you can go ahead and purchase any firearm without any wait time.

No registry required, the Feds only know you hold a firearms license and therefore may have firearms. In the event that there is a court ordered firearm prohibition or criminal reccord, the boys in blue deal with the individual accordingly.

I get it, 2A is constitutional but the US has a clear problem with gun violence. This is still a very pricey solution and doing background checks on millions of americans and process millions of applications would take a tremendous amount of time and effort but isn't worth it when schools are literally being shot up?

Criminals and organized crime will always find a way, for instance in Canada they get their guns from the US, but for the most part it seems like lone actors with mental health issues are the ones committing school shootings.
 
What if Semi Auto’s were not banned but required a similar set of hoops to jump through such as purchasing a suppressor? That way folks could still own and enjoy them but it would be a commitment and take some serious time to acquire.


I would support making suppressors fully legal with no hoops in exchange for that.
I personally prefer dropping the hoops on SBRs and suppressors and don't really see value to either side in adding ARs - they are either legal or not, you either pass a background check or you don't. Adding a $200 fee and a year wait does very little for public safety - particularly given the very small number of murders via AR.
 
Back
Top